RCC 41-60

R.C.C. NO.
41
Monday, July 28, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:42 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose, to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Jaime S. L. Tadeo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. TADEO: Aming Amang Diyos at Allah, Diyos ni Abraham, Moises, Jacob,
Lapu-Lapu, Rizal at Bonifacio, Diyos ng Kasaysayan at ng sambayanang
Pilipino:
Kami ay lumalapit sa Iyo sa mga sandaling ito na kung saan kami ay
nagtatalakayan tungkol sa aming Saligang Batas. Tinipon Mo kami mula sa
ibat ibang
kaabalahan; antas ng buhay, pananaw at simulain. Bagamat magkakaiba
ang aming katayuan at pananaw, pinapag-isa Mo kami sa iisang adhikain
na makamtang
ganap ang aming kalayaan at kasarinlan.
O Diyos, sa mga sandaling ito inilalapit ko sa Iyo ang mga magbubukid,
manggagawa at iba pang aping uri at sektor. Patuloy pa rin kaming bihag ng
mala-kolonyal at mala-piyudal na sistema na nagbabaon sa amin sa
kumunoy ng kahirapan. Kaming magbubukid na lumilikha ng pagkain at
yaman ng bansa na
siyang mayroong kapangyarihang paningningin sa ginto ang kabukiran ang
siyang walang pagkain.
Sa gitna ng katotohanang ito, kaming mga Commissioners ay nagtitipon sa

isang lugar na mistulang malayo sa kapaitan ng buhay. Ilayo Mo kami sa
tukso ng
kasaganaan, ng karangyaan, ng kariwasaan na maaaring maglayo sa aming
adhikain at maghiwalay sa amin sa naghihirap na sambayanang Pilipino at sa
kanilang
kapakanang nais naming tugunan. Patnubayan Mo kami ng Iyong banal na
diwa upang sa aming pagtatalakayan ay makalikha kami ng isang
makabuluhang Saligang
Batas na magbibigay ng pampulitika, pangkabuhayang kapangyarihan sa
mga dukha at ganap na kasarinlan sa aming bayan, isang Saligang Batas na
magbibigay
tiwala sa kakayahan ng sambayanang Pilipinong mangalaga at magpaunlad
ng kanyang likas na yaman, umugit sa sariling pag-unlad at ipagtanggol ang
sarili
laban sa pampulitika at pangkabuhayang kontrol at monopolyo ng mga
dayuhan.
Ito ang aming dalangin sa ngalan ng pakikibaka para sa katotohanan,
katarungan at kalayaan. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present *
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present *
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Absent
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present *
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
The President is present.

The roll call shows 34 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we dispense with the reading of
the Journal of the previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. RAMA.: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of
Business.
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Petition and Communications, the
President making the corresponding references:
PETITION
Petition of the honorable Commissioners Lugum L. Uka, Yusup R. Abubakar,
Napoleon G. Rama, Regalado E. Maambong, Jose N. Nolledo, Ma. Teresa F.
Nieva,
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Florenz D. Regalado, requesting the Committee on
Human Resources to immediately call a meeting of the Committee to
consider
articles or sections of Proposed Resolution No. 451, entitled:
A RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS
RELATIVE TO THE PROBLEM OF ENGLISH, SPANISH AND FILIPINO, OUR
MOTHER TONGUES, NATIVE
LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS, AND OTHER RELATED SUBJECTS,
which the Committee may wish to incorporate into the new Constitution.
(Petition No. 1 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Mariano Z. Familara, Jr. of 5521 Devonshire, Detroit,
Michigan, proposing that it be the policy of the State to stamp out graft and
corruption and hidden wealth, and suggesting to this end that the burden of
proof that said wealth or property was amassed legitimately be shifted to the
owner or possessor thereof.
(Communication No. 343 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
Letter from Mr. David D. Boaz, Cato Institute, 224 Second St. SE, Washington,
D.C. 20003, transmitting a copy of Cato Policy Report containing an article
by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, entitled: The Constitutional Protection of
Economic Freedom.
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Letter from Mr. Joaquin J. Pascual of 63-C P. Burgos St., Batangas City, urging
the Constitutional Commission to adopt provisions for the welfare of senior
citizens and government retirees.

To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Potenciano M. Alcala, Sr. of 11 JG Village, Bakyas, Bacolod
City, favoring the retention of U.S. military bases and saying that Russian
imperialism is worse than American imperialism.
Communication from Mr. Bartolome Banaken and Ms. Lourdes Calde,
submitting the following preferences of the people of Bontoc and Bauko,
Mountain Province
who attended the public consultations conducted by the honorable
Commissioner Ponciano L. Bennagen: On education Cordillera Province be
represented in
the Textbooks Board to ensure inclusion of culture in the areas, guidance
counseling and special education scheme for children with behavioral
problems; on
suffrage adoption of measures to ensure that the illiterate voters choices
are truly reflected; on national language English is preferred; on
emergency powers declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus be vested in the legislature; abolition of death penalty;
retention of U.S. military bases and the presidential form of government with
a unicameral legislature.
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Sinub-badan ka mga Bagobo na Mekatanod (Association of
Awakened Bagobos), requesting the Commission to give favorable
consideration to the
rights and privileges of national minorities.
Letter from Mr. Ricardo R. Lozano of 58 Gastambide St., Sampaloc, Manila,
suggesting provisions for the right of the State to appeal from a decision of a
lower court or tribunal, and for extrajudicial confessions freely and
voluntarily given even without the assistance of counsel to be admissible in
evidence.

To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. Marlo-Rodrigo R. de Jesus of Paraaque Political Science
Society, Sto. Nio Executive Village, Barangay Sun Valley, Paraaque, Metro
Manila, proposing provisions reiterating the prohibition against servants in
the civil service, including military and barangay officials, from engaging in
partisan politics and condemning violation thereof by ouster or dismissal
from office.
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Resolution No. 355 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cebu, proposing a
nuclear-free Philippines, banning the establishment of foreign military bases,
depots and/or facilities intended for the storage of nuclear weapons or
materials, setting up of nuclear power plants and the transit or overflight of
any
vehicle or airplane carrying nuclear weapons or materials.
Letter from Mr. Mario P. Arenas of 3064 Brandywine Drive, San Jose,
California, proposing a tenure of two consecutive terms with the right to run
for the
same office after a reasonable time for elective officials from councilor level
to senatorial level.
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Letter from Bro. Peter de Groot, FSC of La Salle Green Hills, Metro Manila,
proposing the inclusion of the following provision: Parents should have the
opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Communication from Mr. Leopoldo C. Segovia of Atlag, Malolos, Bulacan,

requesting a provision protecting consumers from the common practice of
short-weighing and similar forms of deceit.
Principles.
Position paper submitted by the Seventh Day Adventist Church in the
Philippines on religious liberty and separation of Church and State.
Letter from Mr. Vicente K. Cal, Sr. of Philippine Veterans Legion, Legion Home
Bldg., PVAO Compound, Arroceros St., Manila, expressing apprehension on
the
ratification of the new Constitution if a provision on the prohibition of foreign
military bases in the Philippines is incorporated therein.
Letter from Mr. Ricardo M. Talusan, no address, opposing the abolition of the
death penalty and proposing the taxing of religious organizations property
and income, and provisions for free education from elementary school to
college levels, among others.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO. 17
(Article on Accountability of Public Officers)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA.: I move that we continue the consideration of Committee Report

No. 17 on the Article on Accountability of Public Officers. We are now in the
period of amendments. I ask that the Chairman of the Committee as well as
the members come forward and take his seat in front.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we proceed to the period of amendments, the Chair
wishes to acknowledge the presence of the second year high school students
of the
Philippine Science High School.
Is there any objection that we continue the consideration of Committee
Report No. 17 on the Article on Accountability of Public Officers? (Silence)
The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
May we call on the honorable Chairman and members of the Committee.
MR. RAMA.: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized to present his
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
I propose an amendment on Section 2, page 1, line 17 of the draft Article to
insert the phrase MANIFEST AND GROSS DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR WILL
between
corruption and or, so that the entire Section 2 will now read: The
President, the Vice- President, Members of the Supreme Court, the Members
of the
Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office on impeachment for and conviction of, culpable violation of the
Constitution,
treason, bribery, other high crimes, graft and corruption, MANIFEST AND
GROSS DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR WILL or betrayal of public trust.
May I briefly explain, Madam President, the reason for this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may please proceed.
MR. OPLE: It is true that the perpetual disqualification of the President from
seeking a reelection, which is already decided by this Commission, removes
him from direct contention, but not as the titular leader of his political party.
In the nature of this system, the President will be vulnerable to
pressures, to use the powers of government in behalf of the candidates of his
party for the legislature, for the local governments and for President and
Vice-President. An explicit provision of this Constitution, which makes

massive election frauds herein designated as MANIFEST AND GROSS
DISREGARD OF THE
POPULAR WILL an impeachable offense will give the President an armor
against such pressures. He will have to be seen as putting his prestige and
authority
for clean and free elections by constitutional mandate. and he may rig the
elections at his own peril. The existence of such provision by itself sends a
powerful signal to the entire nation that the new Constitution shall not brook
massive electoral cheating, which is against the popular will, and which
certainly deserves to be ranked as an impeachable offense together with
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes,
graft
and corruption and betrayal of the public trust.
I seek the Committees response to this proposal, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask the honorable Commissioner a few questions?
MR OPLE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR SARMIENTO: For the information of Commissioner Ople, last Friday,
Commissioner Romulo explained that the phrase culpable violation of the
Constitution,
treason, bribery, other high crimes, graft and corruption or betrayal of public
trust is a catch-all provision to cover all offenses against the
Constitution. Does not the honorable Commissioner think the phrase
MANIFEST AND GROSS DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR WILL would be
embraced by this catch-all
provision?
MR. OPLE: There is a sense in that we can really stop after the phrase
culpable violation of the Constitution which, in a sense, spares this
provision
the obligation to define other offenses already embraced by culpable
violation of the Constitution. With the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions,
however,
the phrases graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust have been
allowed to complement the more general phrase culpable violation of the
Constitution to include treason, bribery, other high crimes, graft and
corruption or betrayal of public trust. But may I submit, Madam President,

that if
there is anything contemporary history teaches us, it is the massive
prostitution of the popular will through electoral cheating that can destroy
democracy. If it is such an imminent threat to democracy, even more
imminent and more direct, aimed at the heart of the existence of a
democracy than
betrayal of public trust, and graft and corruption, I see no reason why in
recognition of this central threat to the life of a democracy and of the
preeminent place of upholding the Constitution and popular sovereignty in
the oath of the President, this proposal inserted in this draft Article, Madam
President, should not be considered as an impeachable offense.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President and members of the Committee. if we
include the phrase MANIFEST AND GROSS DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR
WILL as one of the
impeachable offenses, no one will be prevented from including crimes
against public order or national security and nepotism as impeachable
offenses. My
humble submission, with due respect to Commissioner Ople, is that the
words MANIFEST AND GROSS DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR WILL are
included in the
catch-all provisions betrayal of public trust and violation of the
Constitution.
Thank you very much.
MR. OPLE.: I can grant that, but if I seek to define it here by amendment, it is
because of a major perception of our own people that the prostitution of
the electoral process is a real dagger aimed at the very heart of the
existence of a democracy. Therefore, no less than the other offenses listed
here, it
deserves to be made explicit, given the sharp formulation in Section 2 as an
additional ground for the impeachment of the President.
MR. GUINGONA.: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA.: Last Friday, this Member made a manifestation that I had
submitted Proposed Resolution No. 354 which added as a ground for
impeachment of
the President the national failure of justice evidenced by gross violation of
human rights. Actually, my original proposal included or of election laws;
however, after the manifestation, I asked the honorable members of the
Committee if they thought the first part of my additional ground which was
national
failure of justice evidenced by gross violation of human rights would already
be included in the concept of betrayal of public trust. The answer was in
the affirmative, so I did not insist on the inclusion of this additional ground.
May I, however, explain, Madam President, that I had specifically
eliminated my original suggestion making the President subject to
impeachment for national failure of justice evidenced by gross violation of
election
laws, because of the fact that we have already instituted an independent
Commission on Elections. And it is my humble opinion that to make the
President
liable for an obligation or a duty of an independent Commission on Elections
that we have created would not be in consonance with the rationale behind
the
creation of that independent Commission on Elections.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would just like to be clarified. Is Commissioner
Guingona propounding a question to Commissioner Ople?
MR GUINGONA.: Yes, Madam President. I would like to ask the honorable
proponent, with due respect to his opinion, whether or not in conformity with
the
response of the Committee that the national failure of justice evidenced by
gross violation of human rights which I had suggested would already be
included
in the concept of betrayal of trust, and national failure of justice evidenced
by gross violation of election laws would also be conveyed or embraced in
that same concept of betrayal of public trust.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, we are speaking of proportional ways given to
certain offenses in terms of the degree of their lethal effects on the fragile
life of a democracy. May I also point out that when I introduced this
amendment, I was not thinking of the more recent past which is very
instructive for
all of us. I was not thinking of the immediate future because I have complete
trust in the ability of President Aquino to keep the elections clean and free
and probably to advance the purity of the electoral process to a higher level.
I was thinking beyond that point. I was thinking of future Presidents whose
own vulnerability to temptations would be difficult to measure at this time.
We are writing a constitution not only for this time but for the future
generations. So, I think there is no redundant effect if the Constitutional
Commission takes cognizance of a central fact in our own contemporary
history;
namely, that the prostitution of the popular will can directly threaten the
heart of democracy; it can kill democracy perhaps to a degree not inferior to

the ability of the other offenses. And, therefore, I think it is right that the
Constitutional Commission signal in the future that we are not indifferent
to the serious symptoms of the failure of democracy that we have just
experienced and which, in terms of the lethal values in this provision, can
outrank
the others for stifling and killing outright a democracy in the Philippines.
MR. TREAS: I shall be brief in my opposition to the proposed amendment.
First, I believe, as manifested by Commissioner Sarmiento, the phrase
MANIFEST
AND GROSS DISREGARD OF THE PUBLIC WILL is included in violation of the
Constitution and betrayal of public trust. Furthermore, the President,
under
our new Constitution, cannot run for reelection anymore. So he cannot take
advantage of his office to seek or act in gross disregard of public trust or
popular will. There is no more need, therefore, for the proposed amendment.
Thank you.
MR OPLE. Yes, I said earlier that the President may not be in direct contention
but he remains the titular leader of his political party according to
tradition.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President.
MR RAMA.: Commissioner Concepcion has registered to speak against the
amendment. I ask that he be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you, Madam President.
We have been discussing the grounds for impeachment in the apparent
belief that the actual provisions on impeachment are not sufficiently
embracing. There
is this all-embracing phrase in the Constitution which says: other high
crimes. As Commissioner Romulo stated, this is a political matter more than
a
legal one. And jurisprudence has settled that other high crimes does not
even have to be a crime, but it is any act, omission or conduct that renders
an
official unworthy to remain in office. My apprehension is that the more we
particularize the grounds for impeachment, the more we reduce its ambit
because
we would be subject to the rule: expressio unzius est exclusio alterius I would
prefer if the enumeration ended with the phrase other high crimes because
this phrase includes anything that in the opinion of the impeaching body
renders the subject of impeachment unworthy to remain in office.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President, Commissioner Bernas will speak against the
amendment for two minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: While I agree with the lofty objectives of the amendment
proposed, I am afraid that the effect of the proposed amendment is, in fact,
to weaken
the provisions on impeachment. The amendment speaks of massive election
frauds. We have a very general principle in the Constitution which says that
sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them. And the sovereignty of the people is principally expressed in the
election process and in the referendum and plebiscite processes.
This provision on sovereignty of the people can be violated culpably even if
not massively. By requiring that the violation of the election law be massive,
in effect, we are saying that the impairment of the sovereignty of the people
must be massive in order to be a ground for impeachment. So it weakens
rather
than strengthens the impeachment provisions.
MR OPLE. Madam President, I just wanted to give Commissioner Bernas an
update. The massive election frauds which are covered by the phrase
originally
intended to be proposed had been replaced by MANIFEST AND GROSS
DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR WILL, which is really intended to mean the
same thing.
FR. BERNAS: Even with that phrase, I am afraid that it may be more strict
than culpable violation of the Constitution on sovereignty and thereby,
instead
of strengthening the provision, I am afraid it may weaken the provision.
MR. OPLE: Thank you for that explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: May we now hear first the reaction of the Committee.
MR OPLE: Yes, I would like to ask the Committee just one question. Will the
Committee oblige?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, gladly.
MR OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
Does the Committee support the remarks of Commissioner Bernas
concerning the possibility that the offense MANIFEST AND GROSS
DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR
WILL is already embraced in the underlying meaning of the other
impeachable offenses, and also the remarks of Chief Justice Concepcion that
it is already
embraced under the category of other high crimes?
Is it also the intention of the Commission to make this offense part of
betrayal of public trust, which is the latest ground for impeachment
adduced in
this provision?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee agrees with the opinions of
Commissioners Concepcion and Bernas in that the phrase MANIFEST AND
GROSS DISREGARD
OF THE POPULAR WILL is more limiting and, secondly, this offense could be
considered embraced in the other grounds for impeachment enumerated in
Section
2.
MR OPLE: Thank you, Madam President. It will not be necessary for me to
press this amendment then.
May I proceed to the next proposal, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So for the record, the first proposed amendment is
withdrawn.
MR OPLE: Yes, on that understanding, which I hope the record of this debate
will very clearly register. May I propose a new sentence on Section 11, line
21, page 4 of the draft Article.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I make a comment in relation to this proposed
amendment of Commissioner Ople on Section 11.
On page 3, Section 7 has reference to the Ombudsman. Madam President,

copies of a letter sent by Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez were distributed to us
only five
minutes ago. It is a three-page letter which states the position of the
Tanodbayan regarding the creation of a separate office called the
Ombudsman. As it
is a prejudicial question, I think the Commissioners should be given a little
time to read this letter before we deal with particular amendments on the
Ombudsman, because this can result in the elimination of the Ombudsman
or in a merger of the Ombudsman and the Tanodbayan.
MR OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just for the record, may we hear the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Ople first; afterwards Commissioner Rodrigo may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Yes. May I submit that no prejudicial question arises from this
proposed amendment just because a letter has been received from a source,
no
matter how important it is, which is external to the Constitutional
Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the proposed amendment on Section 11, line 21?
MR OPLE: Yes, Madam President. And, in any case, the proposed amendment
will not likely collide with any outside proposal that may have been received
in
the Commission. I have not seen a copy of the said letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople may please proceed.
MR. OPLE: With the indulgence of Commissioner Rodrigo and of the
Committee, may I proceed to read the amendment which is to add a last
sentence to Section
11, line 21: THE OMBUDSMAN MAY DESIGNATE A SEPARATE DEPUTY FOR THE
MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, so that the entire Section 11 will now read as
follows: The
Ombudsman and his Deputies, as champions of the people, shall act
promptly on the complaints filed, in any form or manner, against public
officials or
employees of the government, including government-owned corporations,
agencies or instrumentalities, and shall notify the complainants of the action
taken
and the results thereof. THE OMBUDSMAN MAY DESIGNATE A SEPARATE
DEPUTY FOR THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.
May I state a brief reason for this amendment, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has five minutes to explain his proposed
amendment.
MR OPLE: Thank you.
The original Ombudsman was created in Sweden in 1810 and has survived
practically unchanged for over 170 years. The military Ombudsman
appeared for the
first time in history in Norway in 1952 and in West Germany in 1956. In
Norway, the military Ombudsman, known as ombudsmannen for forsvaret,
was
superimposed on an existing structure of enlisted spokesmen chosen by
each unit of the Norwegian Armed Forces.
In our own Philippine Armed Forces, there has arisen in recent years a type of
fraternal association outside the chain of command proposing reformist
objectives. They constitute, in fact, an informal grievance machinery against
injustices to the rank and file soldiery and perceive graft in higher rank
and neglect of the needs of troops in combat zones. The Reform the Armed
Forces Movement or RAM has kept precincts for pushing logistics to the field,
the
implied accusation being that most of the resources are used up in Manila
instead of sent to soldiers in the field. The Guardians, the El Diablo and other
organizations dominated by enlisted men function, more or less, as
grievance collectors and as mutual aid societies.
This proposed amendment merely seeks to extend the office of the
Ombudsman to the military establishment, just as it champions the common
people against
bureaucratic indifference. The Ombudsman can designate a deputy to help
the ordinary foot soldier get through with his grievance to higher authorities.
This deputy will, of course, work in close cooperation with the Minister of
National Defense and the Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff
because of the necessity to maintain the integrity of the chain of command.
Ordinary soldiers, when they know they can turn to a military Ombudsman
for
their complaints, may not have to fall back on their own informal devices to
obtain redress for their grievances. The Ombudsman will help raise troop
morale in accordance with a major professed goal of the President and the
military authorities themselves. I seek the Committees kind concurrence to
this
proposal.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.

MR. SARMIENTO: This is the second time that I will be objecting to the
proposal of the honorable Commissioner Ople. I supported all his proposals in
the
past, but this is the second time that I will be objecting to his proposal.
Madam President, if we ingraft this proposal to our Constitution, what will
prevent other sectors to suggest the creation of a cultural minority
Ombudsman,
a health Ombudsman, a justice Ombudsman, a workers Ombudsman? I think
we should not favor an establishment or an entity by suggesting the creation
of an
Ombudsman particularly for that entity. The Ombudsman should be for all
sectors. Secondly, we have filed a resolution with the Constitutional
Commission,
as agreed in principle by the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and
Agencies, for the creation of a Commission on Human Rights to handle
precisely
these problems. And, thirdly, we have other offices now existing that could
handle these problems of the foot. soldiers or any civilian against the
military, for instance, the Judge Advocate Generals Office and the Office of
the Inspector General. Also, we have the Complaints Division of Malacaang
which receives complaints against officials of the government. I think what
we need is not the creation of another entity to answer or respond to the
problems of employees of a particular establishment but the selection of
good people to occupy existing offices. So, I humbly submit, Madam
President, that
this proposal is not necessary. This will merely create or expand more
mechanisms; this would mean duplication of efforts of existing offices.
Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
MR OPLE: Madam President, may I reply briefly to Commissioner Sarmiento?
THE PRESIDENT: May we just hear first from Commissioner de Castro so that
there will be only one reply.
MR OPLE: Thank you.
MR DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
If the proposal of the Honorable Ople is to create a system by which the lowly
soldier in the military may have the means to file his complaints with
anybody, the military has already a system for this purpose. Starting from
the commanding officer of the company, to the battalion, to the regiment, to
the
division, and to the office of the Chief of Staff, there is the Inspector General
who conducts inspection every now and then and asks every soldier,
without the presence of his officer, whether he has any complaint against his
officer/s, against his noncommissioned officers or against the government.
So
there is already a system in the Armed Forces to get the complaint of the
lowly soldier, and I believe it will not be necessary to create another system
in
the government for this purpose.
MR. OPLE: May I reply briefly to both Commissioners de Castro and
Sarmiento.
There may be a glut of complaints and action services in the civilian
government, but I assure the Commissioners that the area where the
Ombudsman can be
felt as a truly innovative beneficent friend of the lowly rank and file will be in
the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
I am not at liberty, I suppose, to disclose some of the more horrifying
complaints in a long list of particulars submitted by the Reform the Armed
Forces
Movement to former President Marcos, but there is one that I ought to share
with this Commission. The widows of some of the soldiers killed in action in
Mindanao had to follow up their gratuity papers, their death compensation
claims, in one of the headquarters. According to one of those complaints that
was
very clear, some of the processors in that headquarters took advantage of
the widows of soldiers slain in battle to the extent of subjecting them to
unconscionable molestations.
I am not saying that this is endemic, but since we have created the office of
the Ombudsman, what is wrong if we vest it with the power to extend itself
as
a champion of the common man in this context, the ordinary foot soldier
so that he will have a friend? And I say here very categorically that the
Ombudsman will have to work in close cooperation with the Minister of
National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. There
will be no attempt to disrupt the integrity of the chain of command. The
Ombudsman, in this case, will be a friend also of the highest authorities in
the
Ministry of National Defense. I submit, Madam President, because I have only
five minutes and I hope Commissioner de Castros time is not charged to
mine.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not at all charged to Commissioner Oples time.
MR DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
When we talk of the Ombudsman in the military to take care particularly of
the complaints of the widows and orphans of soldiers as stated by the
Honorable
Ople, we have two organizations which look after these. These organizations
are: the Last Watering Hole which meets today and every 28th day of the
month
to check on the complaints of soldiers, of officers, of widows and orphans;
and the Association of Generals and Flag Officers which also looks after the
welfare of the veterans, their widows and their orphans. And I have a
resolution to also look after the welfare of these war veterans, their orphans
and
their widows. So, I believe that to create an Ombudsman for the military in
the Constitution is no longer necessary.
This time is not charged to the Honorable Oples.
MR. OPLE: I submit, Madam President. I seek the honorable Committees
benediction for this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear the position of the Committee on this
particular amendment of Commissioner Ople?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just ask one question of the
proponent. The Ombudsman for the military will deal with relationships
between the soldier
and the hierarchy. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: It can be lateral or it can be vertical. With higher authority, yes,
but also with fellow soldiers occupying positions of trust.
MR MONSOD: In other words, within the military?
MR OPLE: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: It would not include human rights violations by soldiers
against civilians?
MR. OPLE: No, that belongs to another jurisdiction, Madam President.
MR MONSOD: So, in effect, it could not be inconsistent with a Commission on
Human Rights?
MR. OPLE: No, there is absolutely no overlap or inconsistency.
MR MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee accepts the amendment of
the proponent.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would have no objection to the proposed amendment, but it
should not be on Section 11. It should be placed on Section 6 because if we
put it
here, the appointing authority will no longer be the President but the
Ombudsman, and that is not, I think, the philosophy of the provision.
So it should also be covered by the manner by which an appointment may be
extended to it. So I would propose that it be transferred principally to Section
6.
MR. OPLE: The Committee has no jurisdiction; personally, I have no objection,
Madam President.
MR DAVIDE: But I would propose that the wording would be: A SEPARATE
DEPUTY FOR THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT MAY BE APPOINTED, after
Mindanao on Section 6,
line 16, page 3.
MR OPLE: I accept the amendment, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople has accepted the amendment. How
about the Committee?
MR MONSOD: We accept, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, I object to the proposed amendment on
two grounds: First, as already stated, there is already a system within the
military
to entertain all the complaints of the lowly soldiers up to the highest level.
Second, there is a provision which we already approved that no military men
shall occupy any civilian office at any one time.
MS QUESADA.: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA.: I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment of
Commissioner Ople, and that is to install the Ombudsman not only for the
military
establishment but also for the health establishment.
I feel that the problems of the health situation in the country are more farreaching and more demanding of this kind of Ombudsman who will speak for
and
in behalf of the powerless, the voiceless people of our country who are
deprived of the right to life and the right to health because they are unable
to
seek or to have access to much-needed health services.
MR FOZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear Commissioner Ople first. Does Commissioner
Ople accept the proposed amendment of Commissioner Quesada?
MR OPLE: No, the Committee has no jurisdiction, Madam President. I am
sorry I have to decline the kind offer.
MR. FOZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: I would like to amend the amendment to the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Let us dispose first of the proposed amendment to the
amendment; afterwards, we will entertain amendments to this proposed
amendment that
has to be accepted by the Committee.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee regrets that it cannot accept
that amendment for the following reason: We realize that there are many
sectors
who would want the concept of Ombudsman installed to protect them or to
look after their welfare, but this is not the place for it. We are creating an
office of the Ombudsman with an Ombudsman at the head; and we realize
that over time, the concept has been successful, and found by the people to
be very
effective in correcting or redressing their grievances. There is no impediment
to many Ombudsmen being appointed as assistants in many sectors as, in
fact,
has happened in many countries. We have to allow the system to evolve and
to be refined and to perfect itself in the process. If we open it up now, there
will be 10 or 12 or 15 sectors who will want to be identified specifically in the
Constitution, and we feel that this is something that could be a matter
of legislation.
In the case of the military, it is a very big, strategic and important sector at
this time, and we feel that there is a justification for making a special
mention of the military now.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will first proceed to vote on the amendment of
Commissioner Ople as amended by Commissioner Davide and as has been
accepted by the
Committee. Afterwards, the body will accept other amendments.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I make a comment on the
amendment, as amended?
MR. RODRIGO: I think the amendment to the amendment reads: A SEPARATE
DEPUTY FOR THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT MAY BE APPOINTED. So it is
discretionary; the
President may or may not appoint him.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Rodrigo objecting to the amendment, as

amended?
MR. RODRIGO: No, I just want to be clarified. Secondly, the President is the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. I notice that we
seem to be emasculating too much the powers of the President. We seem to
be losing faith in the presidency. I think this is an overreaction to what
happened during the term of the dictator Marcos. I think there is only one
Marcos in a hundred years. This Constitution which we are framing is for the
present President and for future Presidents who will be elected by the people.
I repeat, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines who is in charge of the discipline of its members. In this provision
we are creating again another office seemingly independent of the
President to perform functions which constitutionally should be performed by
the President and, therefore, will be in derogation of the powers of the
President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from the Committee first.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we reply. Yesterday afternoon, we went
over this same ground. In fact, the argument that was posed yesterday was
that a
good President would welcome an Ombudsman. We are putting in this
provision that a separate deputy may be appointed. It is the President who
would appoint,
Madam President.
We submit it to the body.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the amendment now as phrased by the
Committee.
MR. MONSOD: May we ask Commissioner Davide to restate the amendment,
as amended.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on line 16, page 3, add a new sentence after
the period (.) following Mindanao to read as follows: A SEPARATE DEPUTY
FOR THE
MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT MAY LIKEWISE BE APPOINTED.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of this particular amendment, as amended,
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor and 11 against; the proposed amendment,
jointly submitted by Commissioners Ople and Davide and accepted by the
Committee, is approved.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I am still on the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know from the Floor Leader who will have the floor.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Ople still has the floor. He has other amendments
to propose.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
On previous clearance with the Floor Leader and the Committee, Madam
President, I would like to submit just two more amendments to the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers. I propose to add a new section to be
denominated as Section 15 which reads: A PUBLIC OFFICER SHALL, UPON
ASSUMPTION OF
OFFICE, DECLARE HIS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. THE PRESIDENT, THE VICEPRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THE
HEADS AND DIRECTORS OF
GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND FLAG
OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC THEIR
NET WORTH AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR
TERMS AND EVERY TWO (2) YEARS THEREAFTER.
May I explain briefly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may please proceed under the fiveminute rule.
MR. OPLE: It will take me only one minute to explain this amendment. We
had previously met this principle in the Article on the Legislative but this was
made applicable only to the Members of the Congress. It was especially
Commissioner Serafin Guingona and Chairman Hilario Davide, Jr. of the
Committee on
the Legislative who called my attention to the fact that if this is made to
apply to the Members of the Congress, it should be made a universal
principle
elsewhere in the Constitution to apply to public officers of the government,
and this is what this additional new section seeks to do, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
As the distinguished proponent said, I had called his attention to the need for
this particular amendment that he is now proposing. May I just mention that
in the Journal of Saturdays session, July 26, on page 28, paragraph 7, the
following appears, and I quote:
Referring to Mr. Tadeos concern on modest living, Mr. Guingona suggested
that impeachable officers submit their statements of assets and liabilities
upon
assumption of office.
I, therefore, would like to assure the distinguished proponent that I fully
support his amendment. However, I wish to offer two amendments to his
amendment, which are to remove the period (.) after LIABILITIES and add
UNDER OATH and to add AND AT THE END OF THEIR TERMS after YEARS
THEREAFTER.
In the case, for example, of a member of the Cabinet who leaves his office
one-and-a-half years after his last disclosure, under this provision he would
not be required to submit a statement of his assets and liabilities. I am,
therefore, proposing these two amendments for the consideration of the
distinguished proponent.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I accept the amendment on my behalf and on
behalf of Commissioner Bennagen who had another resolution to this effect
but who
kindly agreed to combine it with the one I had put forward.
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponents accept an amendment by substitution?
The amendment will read as follows: EVERY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
SHALL, UPON
ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE AND EVERY TWO (2) YEARS THEREAFTER AND
WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FOLLOWING HIS CESSATION FROM OFFICE,
DECLARE UNDER OATH HIS ASSETS AND

LIABILITIES AND DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS NET WORTH.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment by substitution acceptable?
MR. OPLE: I am sorry that we have to decline the proposed amendment to
the amendment on this ground: That Commissioner Davide is, in fact, talking
about a
provision already in the Anti-Graft Law that pertains to all employees of the
government. In this proposed amendment, Commissioner Bennagen and I
are not
requiring every employee of the government to disclose his net worth to the
public. There is no multiplier effect when a common employee of the
government
is required to disclose his net worth, and maybe other than himself and his
immediate neighbors in the office, no one will really care. But in our
proposed
amendment, we would like to introduce a new form of accountability. In a
society, it is understood that we have to lead by example and those who
have this
burden more than the others are the holders of the greatest power.
Therefore, this provision is specific with respect to the President, the VicePresident,
members of the Cabinet, Members of the Congress, the heads and directors
of government-owned or controlled corporations, and flag officers of the
Armed
Forces of the Philippines. The obligations of the rest can be left to the law
and, in fact, there are already laws to that effect. But there is no law so
far and no explicit constitutional mandate that requires the highest officials
of the land to disclose their net worth to the public. In the case of the
United States, comparable officers are required by law to so disclose their
assets and liabilities to the public. Here in the Philippines, it is a matter
of voluntary act, and when we put that on a voluntary basis, the results are
uneven because some disclose and the others do not. I think throughout this
Constitution, we are trying to build a policy of candor and full disclosure and
accountability, and this provision supports that goal for the entire
Constitution, although at present it has to be located in the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers.
MR. DAVIDE: If the idea really is to impress upon the public officer or
employee the particular duty of disclosing his assets and liabilities upon the
assumption to office, then that should apply to all, not just to the public
officer but to all employees because graft and corruption can be committed
not
only by those in the upper bracket in public service but even by those in the
lower bracket. As a matter of fact, Madam President, insofar as graft and
corruption is concerned, we cannot distinguish a separate hierarchy for those
in the upper bracket and for those in the lower bracket. Both of them are
equally liable to disclose their assets and liabilities. And besides, when a
public officer discloses his assets and liabilities, we know already what his
net worth is. So there is no need for a disclosure of net worth because it can
easily be determined from the statement of assets and liabilities.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I prefer to leave the case of the generality of
employees of the government to law, while we treat the highest public
officers
in terms of a constitutional accountability to disclose to the public not merely
to submit to the civil service or to the head of the ministry; in practice
this really means archiving all of these statements of assets and liabilities. In
the case of the higher echelons of the government, just like in the
United States and in other countries, the obligation to disclose to the public
means that there is no choice; they do not send these to the archives.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
MR. RAMA: The amendment has been sufficiently debated on.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the reaction first of the Committee.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee accepts this in principle, but
we just want to make some editorial suggestions so that it would read: A
PUBLIC
OFFICER SHALL, UPON ASSUMPTION TO OFFICE AND EVERY YEAR
THEREAFTER, MAKE A DECLARATION OF HIS ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET
WORTH, WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE
PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, HEADS AND DIRECTORS OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR
CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS, AND OFFICERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES, SHALL BE DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment, Madam President, on behalf of
Commissioner Bennagen and the other author.
MR. DAVIDE: Just for clarification, Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE: Is it ONE YEAR THEREAFTER?
THE PRESIDENT: It is EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER.
MR. DAVIDE: I would propose an amendment to read: AND EVERY TWO YEARS
THEREAFTER, because disclosing ones net worth to the public might involve
the
publication of his assets and liabilities, and that would be very expensive for
the public official.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 10:56 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:05 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I request that the Chairman of the Committee be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we have thirty seconds more? We are just writing the
amendment out, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: It is granted.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we are ready to suggest a proposed
rewording, as consulted with the proponents.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman may please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: The amendment as reworded will now read: A PUBLIC

OFFICER SHALL UPON ASSUMPTION TO OFFICE AND AS OFTEN THEREAFTER
AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW
MAKE A DECLARATION UNDER OATH OF HIS ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET
WORTH WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBERS
OF THE SUPREME COURT,
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, MEMBERS OF THE
CABINET AND OF CONGRESS AND FLAG OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
SHALL BE DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
I am sorry, we forgot to mention the Ombudsman, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the heads and directors of the government, are
they omitted also?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we forgot to mention also the generals and
flag officers of the Armed Forces.
MR. OPLE: The flag rank officers include the commodores of the Navy.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. May we restate the amendment, as amended: A PUBLIC
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL UPON ASSUMPTION TO OFFICE AND AS OFTEN
THEREAFTER AS MAY BE
REQUIRED BY LAW MAKE A DECLARATION UNDER OATH OF HIS ASSETS,
LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE PRESIDENT, VICEPRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE
SUPREME COURT, MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS,
OMBUDSMAN, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,
GENERALS AND OFFICERS OF GENERAL OR FLAG
RANK OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL BE DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: This amendment is jointly proposed by Commissioners Ople,
Bennagen, Guingona and Davide. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, and also Commissioners Padilla and Sarmiento and Chief
Justice Concepcion.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: For just a matter of form, may we suggest that the members of
the Cabinet, of the Congress, of the Supreme Court and of the constitutional
commissions be in that order, instead of putting the members of the Cabinet
and of Congress at the end of the enumeration.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, maybe we can refer that to the Committee on Style.
MR. OPLE: I support the proposal.
MR. PADILLA: And instead of specifying the Ombudsman alone, can we add,
let us say AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES, so that the provision will
be
all-embracing?
MR. MONSOD: We are amenable to that amendment.
MR. OPLE: I support the change.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
MR. FOZ: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: In connection with the enumeration of the public officials who shall
be covered by such requirement of disclosure, is the enumeration inclusive,
meaning to say, that all those not so named or mentioned shall not come
within the coverage of the requirement, so that the ordinary employees will
not be
required to make such disclosure?
MR. OPLE: No, Madam President. The disclosure is mandatory for the
President, the Vice-President, members of the Cabinet and so forth. But
ordinary
government employees, as a rule, are already required to file their
statements of assets and liabilities not for public disclosure but for purposes
of
examination by their superiors, since public interest in their assets and
liabilities would, in any case, be very limited.
MR. FOZ: But the statements of assets and liabilities filed by the rest of the
government personnel constitute public records, and they are available at
any time upon request of anybody, like the members of media, etc. I fear
that the enumeration of the officials covered by such requirement of
disclosure
would, in effect, prohibit any law from requiring any other officials not so
named in the listing from making such disclosure. So I suggest we make such
changes in the phraseology so that the legislature would be free to add other
officials to be within the ambit of the requirement of disclosure.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the interpretation of the Committee? Commissioner
Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, in reply to the inquiry of Commissioner Foz,
the enumeration of public officials, from the President down, for purposes of
public disclosure should not prohibit the legislature from requiring public
disclosure of the statements of assets and liabilities, including net worth of
other inferior officials. That is the sense of consensus of the members of the
Committee.
MR. FOZ: If that is the meaning being attached to it, I accept.
Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We now proceed to the voting.
Those in favor of this proposed amendment which has been read by the
Chairman of the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their
hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor and none against; the proposed
amendment is approved.
Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I state my very last proposed amendment
which consists in the addition of a new section to the Article on
Accountability of
Public Officers, which is already cleared with the Committee headed by
Chairman Christian Monsod. This is actually a combined draft in which the
Committees reservations were fully overcome. Again, may I say that
Commissioner Bennagen is my co-author of this amendment, together with
the rest of the
members of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers. It will read as
follows: PUBLIC OFFICERS OWE THE STATE AND ITS CONSTITUTION
UNCONDITIONAL
ALLEGIANCE AT ALL TIMES. ANY PUBLIC OFFICER WHO SEEKS TO CHANGE
HIS CITIZENSHIP OR ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT OF ANOTHER
COUNTRY DURING HIS TENURE
SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW. May I explain briefly, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. OPLE: Public officers are expected to set the example on standard singleminded allegiance to the nation and to the public interest. Where they are
seen as already preparing refuge or safety outside their own country
because of lack of faith in the stability of their government and of their own
society, the effect on citizens is demoralizing and unsettling. It is also
divisive because it flaunts a class privilege since only a few can afford at any
time to buy security on foreign shores. For most Filipinos, it is still true what
Manuel Quezon said in his time: Love your country for it is the only one
God has given you. In the face of danger, the human reflex calls for flight or
fight. Public officers must not be seen as running away or preferring not
to fight. They must, together with the rest of their countrymen, in the face of
danger and insecurity, not be seen as wavering in their dedication to the
national interest while they stay on as public officers. They are, however, at
perfect liberty to choose. What this draft provision offers is a clarity of
choice. Those who want to change their citizenship or to live in a foreign
country are free to do so. But when they do it, it is clear that they forfeit
their office as public officers of the Philippines. However, this is not stated
categorically. The draft provision leaves to the future legislature ample
discretion to address the specific implications of this policy based not only on
the national interest but also on equity and fairness for those concerned.
I seek the Committees approval, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: May I propose an amendment to the proposed amendment
to make it a little more embracing as to also include employees? In the case
of a public
officer, his acts are generally publicly visible; whereas in the case of lower
officials or lower employees, sometimes they may actually be the ones
performing these acts but they are not generally known. And to add a little
more teeth to this last portion, it should read: NO PUBLIC OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE
MAY DURING HIS TENURE SEEK A CHANGE IN HIS CITIZENSHIP OR ACQUIRE
THE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT
AUTOMATICALLY FORFEITING HIS OFFICE

OR POSITION.
MR. ROMULO: We do not like the word AUTOMATICALLY; we prefer the
words SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY LAW because there are so many
different situations.
MR. REGALADO: But the cause of the forfeiture is the same; that is, by
applying for naturalization or seeking a change in citizenship or status.
Would
there be any other situation of positive basis?
MR. OPLE: We want to leave maximum flexibility to future legislatures. We
merely stated a general principle here. We know that there will be numerous
consequences that are now unforeseen for hundreds of thousands of our
countrymen both here and abroad; and so, we want to take the safe side by
asking
Congress to deal with those implications at the proper time. However, with
respect to Commissioner Regalados observation about employees of the
government, I see no reason why we cannot expand this to include them if
the Committee, which has previously approved this, is willing to accept it.
MR. ROMULO: We accept the inclusion of other employees.
MR. REGALADO: And by way of substitution of the last phrase which says:
WITHOUT FORFEITING HIS POST, I propose an amendment to read: WITHOUT FORFEITING
HIS OFFICE OR POSITION.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I believe that the proponent has reworded
his proposal and we are not talking anymore about forfeiture of post or office
which
shall be dealt with by law.
MR. REGALADO: I withdraw then, because I got the original copy, not the
amended one.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? Will Commissioner Ople please read
again his proposed amendment?
MR. OPLE: The proposed amendment reads: PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES OWE THE STATE AND ITS CONSTITUTION UNCONDITIONAL
ALLEGIANCE AT ALL TIMES. ANY PUBLIC
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHO SEEKS TO CHANGE HIS CITIZENSHIP OR
ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY DURING HIS

TENURE SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY
LAW.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I just propose an amendment, if the Commissioner is
willing?
I think one does not pledge allegiance to the State but to the Constitution,
the State being a group of persons, more or less numerous, occupying a
definite portion of a territory as defined traditionally. But I think one owes
allegiance to the Constitution, not to this group of persons.
MR. OPLE: May I state in reply, Madam President, that the State so
denominated in this paragraph refers to the generic State which is really the
term that
pertains both to the nation and to its government; it is a State that is in
many ways immutable and fixed because the leadership can change
tomorrow and
the government can be transformed by a 360-degree turn, but that Philippine
State will still be there. It is in that contemplation that the word STATE in
its generic sense is used in this paragraph. It does not refer to any set of
people.
MR. SARMIENTO: I then withdraw my proposed amendment, Madam
President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I would like to propose some amendments by deletion. We
should not include the words UNCONDITIONAL ALLEGIANCE precisely
because the State,
whether it be the people or the government, can at one time or another
commit a mistake, and I do not think we should give any unconditional
allegiance to
any creature or human being. That is tantamount really to an act of faith.
MR. OPLE: That is a good point and I want to know if Commissioner Bacani
will be satisfied either with the word UNAMBIGUOUS or UNEQUIVOCAL.
BISHOP BACANI: Is there ALLEGIANCE?
MR. OPLE: Yes. We can eliminate the adjective if the Commissioner likes.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: It is the Committees adjective, incidentally.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee is willing to let go of its adjective.
THE, PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I have no objection to inserting the word EMPLOYEE after
PUBLIC OFFICER, but I would like to state that under Article 203 of the
Revised
Penal Code, the words PUBLIC OFFICER include employees even of the
lowest rank. The distinction being made in the Code is only between or
among persons
in authority, agents of persons in authority and public officers.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I make a reply to that.
What Commissioner Padilla stated is applicable only to criminal law, but for
purposes of political or administrative law, there is a distinction between a
public officer and a public employee since the public officer is one vested
with discretion whereas a public employee is one with purely ministerial
functions. I agree that that is the concept in the Revised Penal Code; that the
phrase or employee in the epigraphs of hearing in the provisions of the
Penal Code, specifically in Title VII, is even a surplusage inasmuch as it has
been decided that anybody who takes part in governmental functions,
whatever
his rank is in the plantilla, is a public officer. But this one is for political or
administrative purposes and there is a substantial distinction.
MR. OPLE: I think the Committees text stands with that clarification on both
sides.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now to vote?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President. we are ready.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment? They
are asking that it be read, Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: It shall read: PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OWE THE STATE
AND ITS CONSTITUTION ALLEGIANCE AT ALL TIMES, AND A PUBLIC OFFICER
WHO SEEKS TO CHANGE
HIS CITIZENSHIP OR ACQUIRE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT OF ANOTHER
COUNTRY DURING HIS TENURE SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
MR. REGALADO: On the second sentence read by Commissioner Ople, the
words OR EMPLOYEE were not included by him.
MR. ROMULO: No, they were not.
MR. OPLE: Yes, it should include the words OR EMPLOYEE. Thank you for the
correction.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, my proposed amendment is on the method
of appointing the Ombudsman and his deputies. According to Section 7, page
3, the
Ombudsman and his deputies shall be appointed. Following the manner of
the recommendations by the Judicial and Bar Council, I was going to propose
that
they be appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Commission
on Appointments. However, Madam President, I was informed that
Commissioner
Bacani would like to file a motion which will raise a prejudicial question to my
proposed amendment. And so, I would like to give way to Commissioner
Bacani. I yield to Commissioner Bacani.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, when Commissioner Rodrigo moved for
the deletion of the provisions regarding the Ombudsman in our session last
Saturday I
voted against his proposition which was turned down Therefore, I move that
we reconsider that amendment in view of the information that we have
received
from the letter of the Tanodbayan. And I do think that there were not enough
of us present on that day to give a real sounding of the thought of the body
on the matter because we were gradually dwindling in number. I think there

was barely a quorum when the matter was decided
THE PRESIDENT: But we had a quorum, excuse me; just for the record.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, we had a quorum.
THE PRESIDENT: We had a quorum and the proceedings that were held last
Saturday afternoon were perfectly in order.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, I do not question that but I mean we were barely
beyond the required number and it might be that the persons who were not
present at
that time may actually have voted in favor of the amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo, especially in view of the arguments advanced by Raul
Gonzalez. May I
just read a portion of that argument.
BISHOP BACANI: I am going to read from page 2, paragraphs 1 and 2. It says:
In other words, the solution is not to divide the present Tanodbayan into two
separate agencies but to keep its present powers, functions and
responsibilities and to make it work effectively, give it the needed funding
support.
And here I think is the more relevant part:
I cannot properly envision a situation that will ensue as now proposed in the
Constitutional Commission. If the Tanodbayan now will be retained as the
prosecution arm of the Sandiganbayan, what will happen to the cases
investigated by the Ombudsman? Will these have to be sent to the
Tanodbayan for
prosecution? If so, will the Tanodbayan again conduct the preliminary
investigation mandated by law, as part of due process, as condition sine qua
non for
filing of the information with the Sandiganbayan or anti-graft court? Is this
not duplication of work and, therefore, more expensive? If we create the
Office of Ombudsman, giving it lofty powers but without teeth to enforce its
findings, if any, against public officers it investigates, how will this new
Ombudsman be effective? Furthermore, to retain the present Tanodbayan as
mere prosecutor may even duplicate the powers of the fiscals and state
prosecutors
under the Ministry of Justice. It should be remembered that the present
Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) under P.D. No. 1630 does not only investigate and
prosecute
charges under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, but also violations of
the Penal Code provisions under Title VII, from Articles 203 to 245.
So, for these reasons, Madam President, I move for a reconsideration of the
vote last Saturday.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 11:31 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized
for his motion for reconsideration.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before Commissioner Bacani restates his motion for
reconsideration, may I just be allowed to make a comment on the letter?
Madam President, this issue was comprehensively debated upon and
discussed by the body and the Committee for more than two hours last
Friday. We devoted
our time, our efforts just to be clarified on this vital issue. This morning, we
again suspended the session for about 15 to 20 minutes just to
accommodate
one letter.
Madam President, I was looking at the Order of Business and I notice that
there are also several letters. For us to accommodate this letter after
substantially discussing this point is to me interference in our work. This is an
infringement on our independence as a constitutional body. So, may I ask,
Madam President, that we set aside or disregard this letter.
I recall that one letter was also addressed to the body, a letter from BAYAN,
but upon motion of one of our colleagues, the body decided not to consider
nor discuss that letter. And here comes another letter. Madam President, this
will open the floodgates for more letters to come asking for the
reconsideration of actions that were already acted upon by this constitutional
body.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I reply?
MR. RODRIGO: We receive hundreds of letters, but this is a different kind of
letter because this is the letter of the Tanodbayan, also the Ombudsman,
whose
office will be directly affected by the proposed amendment. And I do not
know, I would like to ask first the Committee: Was Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez
invited to any meetings of the Committee regarding the creation of a
separate office called the Ombudsman?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we reply to the query of the honorable
Commissioner?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, Justice Raul Gonzalez was invited, and we
had a very long session with him. The arguments that he presented to the
Committee were given full consideration in the Committees deliberation of
the concept that is now being presented to this body.
Secondly, the arguments that he has in the letter were the same issues that
were posed last Saturday by the Honorable Rodrigo and which was the
subject of
discussion for two hours.
MR. RODRIGO: My only point is its propriety. It seems the idea is: Why are we
giving importance to this particular letter? Why not to a letter from BAYAN?
A letter from BAYAN is different; a letter from UNIDO will be different from
this letter because this is a letter from the head of the office which will be
directly affected and whose functions will be duplicated by the creation of
the Ombudsman.
So, that is the only point I would like to raise, but it is not improper for us to
give importance to this letter. And this is not interference; I think
this is helping us. This is the right of any citizen to write a letter to us,
especially the head of an office that will be affected by a proposed

amendment to the Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: We have the motion of Commissioner Bacani to reconsider
the decision. So, we will put that to a vote or would the Commissioner want
to
explain?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Madam President, I find it difficult to do this, but in the
interval, some explanations were given to me.
The first purpose of my motion is to give a chance to the people who are not
here to hear the reasons for and against and to vote on it. But the
Gentleman
pointed out that if we were to do this for every item, we may not be able to
finish the work of the Commission.
Second, some other matter was explained to me regarding the function of
the Ombudsman which I did not understand before and did not get as clearly
before;
and that is, it can admonish even in non-criminal charges and that, therefore,
its function would not simply be prosecutory. It will serve a useful purpose
even if it need not duplicate the prosecution function of the present
Tanodbayan.
And so, even though I find it difficult to do this it is a bit humiliating I
withdraw my motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion to reconsider has been withdrawn. So, we will
proceed now to another business.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de Castro be
recognized for a new amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I have a proposed amendment but I only
gave way to the motion of Commissioner Bacani because I thought he was
going to pursue
his motion. His motion involved a prejudicial question to my amendment. But
since the motion is withdrawn, then there is no more prejudicial question to
the amendment that I want to present.
THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Rodrigo has an amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will give way to the Honorable Rodrigo.

THE PRESIDENT: We will call on Commissioner de Castro later.
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: This is an amendment without prejudice to my stand
regarding the creation of the Ombudsman which, I believe, is a toothless
duplication of the
work of the Tanodbayan.
On page 3, Section 7, line 18, after the word President, add WITH THE
CONFIRMATION OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, then put a period
(.) and delete
the rest of the section, so that the section would read: Section 7. The
Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President WITH THE
CONFIRMATION OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Rodrigo desire to explain?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. Under Section 7, the Ombudsman and his deputies would
be appointed through the method of the Judicial and Bar Council which is the
method
followed in the case of appointments of justices and other members of the
judiciary. It is stated in this very proposed amendment that the Ombudsman
and
his deputies would have the same rank as the members of the constitutional
commissions, like the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit and
the
Civil Service Commission. All the commissioners in these constitutional
commissions are appointed by the President with the confirmation of the
Commission
on Appointments. So, if the Ombudsman and his deputies are ranked with
these, why should they be an exception? Why should they not be appointed
by the
President with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments? Why
should they be ranked with the members of the judiciary?
That is my explanation, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, last Saturday, Commissioner Rodrigo raised
this point and we told him that the Committee believes that there is a
difference
between the Ombudsman and the constitutional commissions.
We have an amendment because there was an error on Section 8. It was the

intention of the Committee to put the phrase AND A MEMBER OF THE
PHILIPPINE BAR.
In other words, the Ombudsman must be a member of the Philippine Bar.
The reason we feel that there is a difference is that in the case of the COA,
the members of the COA would be either lawyers or CPAs with auditing
experience; in the case of the Civil Service Commission, they could be
lawyers or others who have demonstrated a capability in public
administration; and
in the case of the COMELEC, under the constitutional provision, only a
majority out of the seven should be lawyers, so there can be three nonlawyers.
So, we felt that the prescreening by the Judicial and Bar Council would not be
applicable to the other constitutional commissions but would be applicable
in the case of the Ombudsman.
I also would like to ask Justice Colayco for some additional remarks on this
point.
MR. COLAYCO: I would like to state here a very important function of the
Ombudsman as proposed by the Committee. I agree with Commissioner
Rodrigo that the
likes of the Marcoses will not appear every year nor even every 10 years. But
notwithstanding, Presidents are human beings, and as human beings, they
can
be corrupted by the power that they have.
I understand from the objection of Commissioner Rodrigo that we already
have the Tanodbayan and, therefore, he can continue functioning or
performing the
functions that are proposed to be performed by the Ombudsman. The
present Tanodbayan is appointed by the President. Let us see the
performance of the
former Tanodbayans that we had. Let us start with Justice Ericta. What did
Justice Ericta say upon taking his oath this is in the papers I will brook
no interference unless the President orders me. That was a logical
statement because he was a creature of the President. What happened with
the next
Ombudsman? I hate to name names, but up to the last Ombudsman that we
had, with the exception, of course, of Justice Gonzalez now, they were all
total
failures. They were supposed to be fiscalizers of the government. How can
they fiscalize the Office of the President when they were appointed by the
President?
Our proposal is for the President to appoint him, but his choice is limited to
the persons who will be chosen by a known political body. So, although
chosen by this known political body, he will not owe any debt of gratitude to
the Judicial and Bar Council.
Let us take the example of what happened to Mr. Marcos. The Presidents
office was supposed to be under the supervision of the COA. But what
happened was
that the Commissioners then were told, Dont touch us, and that is what
they did, and that is why we have the effect of the known performance of a
constitutional officer no less. He could do that because the Commissioners of
COA were appointed by him. That cannot be repeated if we appoint the
Ombudsman from a list selected by a known political body.
We have been talking about the practice in the United States. Let me read
something about that. In connection with the appointment of the
Ombudsman in some
states in the United States, some persons favored direct legislative selection
without participation by the executive. This is an American author talking,
not a European author. Thus, a Florida bill proposes simply that the
Ombudsman be appointed by agreement of the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of
the House, subject to confirmation by the majority of the members of each
chamber of the legislature. And then there is the summary that says that all
the
plans emphasized the desirability of depoliticalizing the selection process.
How can we have a fiscalizer who is appointed by the President whose office
is
supposed to be under the jurisdiction of such an appointee? It does not make
sense.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Just a few remarks in reply. In the case of Ericta that was
mentioned and the other cases whose names were not mentioned, these
people were
working under martial law, and we should not use as a norm what happened
during the martial law.
May I add that in this very proposal in Section 4, the Sandiganbayan is
retained. This is a very important judicial body, and the members and the
chairman
of the Sandiganbayan are appointed by the President with the concurrence of

the Commission on Appointments. In Section 5, the Tanodbayan is
mentioned, and
the Tanodbayan is to be appointed by the President with the concurrence of
the Commission on Appointments.
In the case mentioned about the practice in the United States, I do not know
why we should follow individual states in the United States, but even then, it
is stated there that the governor of the state has nothing to do with the
appointment. But here, the President anyway is the one going to appoint, so
there
is no similarity. The only difference is that, in case we follow the method of
having a Judicial and Bar Council, the choice of the President will be
limited to six in the beginning, and after that, from a list of three. But when I
opposed the creation of this Judicial and Bar Council, even for the
judiciary, I pointed out the fact that anyway almost all the members of the
Judicial and Bar Council are appointees of the President, and the President,
while limited to the three recommendees, may refuse to appoint any of those
three and ask the Council to submit another three. He may refuse again to
appoint from those three and ask the Council to submit another three. And
so, Madam President, I do not see why all the other high officials of the
government, aside from the members of the judiciary, are appointed by the
President with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. And we
make an
exception of this Ombudsman who, after all, is toothless; he has no coercive
power; he cannot even prosecute. He can only advise or direct, but has no
power whatsoever.
I know that we are pressed for time, I think we are ready. I ask that we vote
on this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the Committee accept?
MR. MONSOD: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the proposed
amendment for the reasons already discussed at length. May we submit it to
a vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Rodrigo kindly repeat the amendment?
MR. RODRIGO: With the amendment, Section 7 on page 3, line 17, will read:
The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President WITH
THE
CONFIRMATION OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, before we vote, a parliamentary
inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES: Will the Committee please inform us again who are the
members of the Judicial and Bar Council?
MR. ROMULO: The Judicial and Bar Council consists of the Chief Justice, the
Minister of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio
members. The regular members are a representative of the Integrated Bar, a
law professor, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court and a representative of
the private sector.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, it is practically a Commission on Appointments, with
the difference that it is a balanced composition of nonpolitical and political
personages.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized,
MR. OPLE: May I explain my predicament for a minute? Last Saturday, I found
myself in a very small minority of this Commission supporting Commissioner
Rodrigo. And this morning, the Committee and the Commission were kind
enough to approve a proposed amendment which would extend the
jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman to the military establishment. I think I find myself now torn
between two loyalties and two obligations. But may I say that although I
would much
rather have this office of the Ombudsman directly accountable to the
President of the Philippines, I find the proposal now, as amended, quite
bearable in
that the office of the Ombudsman, if possible, ought to help the future
Congress monitor the effects of its laws, especially on the efficiency and
integrity of the government.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 8 votes in favor and 28 against; the amendment is lost.
recognized for an amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President. It is already ten minutes after
twelve; I shall be very, very brief.
During the period of sponsorship and debate, Commissioner Nolledo, with his
prowess in convincing people, talked about graft and corruption in our
government. I cannot add nor subtract. The only thing I can say is: even as a
joke, it is common now to answer Ang lagay bay ano? It is a joke, but it
seeps through the dignity of a person.
I remember when I was young and was in the military academy for four
years, only three things were taught to us: duty, honor, country. Yet, the
Armed
Forces was not spared from graft and corruption so much so that we now
have a board composed mostly of retired military men. I am saying this
because,
while we recognize that graft and corruption is the cancerous malady that
seeps into our society, we do not have a state policy on what to do about
graft
and corruption. The Article on Accountability of Public Officers mentioned
graft and corruption only in two sections: in Section 2 and another one in
Section 4. In so stating, graft and corruption on line 17, page 1 was
mentioned as one of the causes for impeachment only; and on page 3 the
Anti-Graft
Court only describes what a Sandiganbayan should be. The State has no
policy regarding graft and corruption.
Madam President, I have a resolution about graft and corruption as a matter
of state policy. It was referred to the Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers, and yet there is nothing in the report about it. Apparently, we want
to continue graft and corruption in our society, the very malady that seeps
into our country. I was informed that this resolution was sent to the
Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles. I
am a
member of this Committee but I do not find it there. May I know from the
Committee whether or not they want a state policy on graft and corruption?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the resolution was referred by this

Committee to the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles.
And if such was not done procedurally, we would like to state today for the
record that it properly belongs to the Article on Declaration of Principles and
should be considered by that Committee. But we do agree with the
Commissioner on the policy against graft and corruption.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you. I will wait for it in our Committee.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I consulted with the Committee last Saturday on my
proposal to have a declaration and they referred me to the Committee on
Preamble,
National Territory, and Declaration of Principles. And it reads: IT IS THE DUTY
OF GOVERNMENT TO ERADICATE NEPOTISM, FAVORITISM, CORRUPTION AND
WASTE IN
PUBLIC LIFE. And so, this will be referred to said Committee. I think this
supports Commissioner de Castros proposal.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you. But considering the import of graft and
corruption in our government and in our society, I would still insist that a
particular
section on graft and corruption be made a matter of state policy. I will wait
for it in our Committee.
Madam President, my next and last amendment is on page 5, Section 14,
lines 26 to 28. It was accepted by the Committee during our interpellation
that the
cronies are the ones most responsible in debauching our banks and our
treasury, not the President, the Vice-President, the Congressmen nor the
members of
the Cabinet. I would request, therefore, on suggestion of somebody, that the
words DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY be inserted between the words granted
and by
on line 28, page 5. So, the section now will read: No loan, guaranty or other
form of financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, by any government-owned or controlled bank . . .
MR. MONSOD: The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote?
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we suspend the session until onethirty this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for lunch until one-thirty in the
afternoon.
It was 12:19 p.m.
At 1:46 p.m., the session was resumed.
Before we start our agenda for this afternoon, may we acknowledge the
presence of our guests from Indonesia led by Dr. Abdul Ghani, adviser to the
President of Indonesia. He is very much interested in the proceedings of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986.
We welcome you, Dr. Abdul Ghani, and your party.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, may I submit three proposals which, in
principle, have already been accepted by the Committee.
The first amendment is on page 3, line 27. After the a words Philippine Bar,
insert the following: THEY MUST BE OF RECOGNIZED PROBITY AND
INDEPENDENCE.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how will the section read now?

MR. MONSOD: We are accepting that phrase. May we await the amendment
of Commissioner Regalado for purposes of locating it within the paragraph, if
that is
all right with Commissioner Bennagen.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: But the phrase OF RECOGNIZED PROBITY AND
INDEPENDENCE is accepted by the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the amendment of Commissioner Regalado?
MR. REGALADO: On Section 1.
MR. MONSOD: Shall we go to Section 8 so that we can complete Section 8?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President.
This is one of my proposed amendments, to read: The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, at least forty years
old, AND OF RECOGNIZED PROBITY AND INDEPENDENCE.
MR. MONSOD: AND MEMBERS of the Philippine Bar, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Let me have it again, Madam President, because my writing
here is already confusing. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be
natural-born
citizens of the Philippines, at least forty years old, OF RECOGNIZED PROBITY
AND INDEPENDENCE AND MEMBERS of the Philippine Bar.
THE PRESIDENT: How about AND MEMBERS of the Philippine Bar?
MR. BENNAGEN: I thought we are in the phrase OF RECOGNIZED PROBITY
AND INDEPENDENCE?
MR. MONSOD: It was added already, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is going to be the final form.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I restate the paragraph as it will now
read?
MR. MONSOD: The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born

citizens of the Philippines, at least forty years old, WITH RECOGNIZED
PROBITY AND
INDEPENDENCE, AND MEMBERS of the Philippine Bar. The Ombudsman must
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
MR. ABUBAKAR: May I interpellate the sponsor on the phrase RECOGNIZED
PROBITY AND INDEPENDENCE? Who shall determine the disqualifications?
These two
words have different meanings. So, how would the sponsor determine probity
and independence? Will he leave it to the appointing power or must he attain
a
certain standard to meet the quality of probity and independence?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may the Committee answer that?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: The Committees plan, as the Commissioner knows, is that the
nominees will come from the Judicial and Bar Council. So, initially, the Judicial
and Bar Council will determine whether they possess the qualification of
probity and independence.
As to the second part of the question, I would assume that a candidate must
have reached a certain degree of accomplishment and public reputation.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Since this involves Section 8 already, I wonder if the Committee
will accept further amendments to the proposal of Commissioner Bennagen.
The
proposed amendment would be on lines 25 and 27. On line 25, after the
comma (,) following Philippines, add the following: AND AT THE TIME OF
THEIR
APPOINTMENT, then put a comma (,); on line 27, after the word Bar, add
AND MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES FOR ANY ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE
IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING ELECTION; and, finally, on line 28, delete the word been, and
substitute it with the following: FOR TEN YEARS OR MORE BEEN A JUDGE OR;
then
delete the word for on line 28 and all the words on line 29, and substitute
the same with the words IN THE PHILIPPINES. So that the entire section will
now read as follows: The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be naturalborn citizens of the Philippines, AND AT THE TIME OF THEIR APPOINTMENT, at
least
forty years old, WITH RECOGNIZED PROBITY AND INDEPENDENCE, AND
MEMBERS of the Philippine Bar, AND MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES
FOR ANY ELECTIVE OFFICE IN
THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION. The Ombudsman must have FOR
TEN YEARS OR MORE BEEN A JUDGE OR engaged in the practice of law IN
THE PHILIPPINES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted by Commissioner Bennagen and the
Committee?
MR. BENNAGEN: I do not think that is an amendment to my amendment. I
think the Committee should answer it.
MR. REGALADO: That was an amendment to my proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: We accept the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So then, can we state that this will be a joint amendment of
Commissioners Bennagen, Davide and Regalado?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have this read again, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MONSOD: The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines, AND AT THE TIME OF THEIR APPOINTMENTS, at
least forty years
old, WITH RECOGNIZED PROBITY AND INDEPENDENCE, AND MEMBERS of the
Philippine Bar, AND MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES FOR ANY ELECTIVE
OFFICE IN THE
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION. The Ombudsman must have FOR TEN
YEARS OR MORE BEEN A JUDGE OR engaged in the practice of law IN THE
PHILIPPINES.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, may I proceed with the second
amendment?
MR. BENNAGEN: This is on page 4: after line 24, I propose to restore to the
section the first function that was in Committee Report No. 16 which was not
included in Committee Report No. 17.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what line?
MR. BENNAGEN: It should be included after the word duties on line 24.
MR. MONSOD: This will be a paragraph insertion, I believe.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, it is a whole paragraph. So, it is an amendment by
insertion.
THE PRESIDENT: Before subparagraph (1).
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. It used to be Section 6-A of Committee Report No. 16,
and it reads: TO INVESTIGATE ON ITS OWN OR ON COMPLAINT BY ANY
PERSON ANY ACT OR
OMISSION OF ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL, EMPLOYEE, OFFICE OR AGENCY WHEN
SUCH ACT OR OMISSION IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST, IMPROPER OR INEFFICIENT.
I think the reason for restoring this is that it is a direct function of the
Ombudsman without having to delegate it to others.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, before we accept, could we ask
Commissioner Bennagen to get together with Commissioner Natividad
because he has the same idea.
The principle being enunciated is acceptable to us but so as not to duplicate
efforts, I suggest that the proponent confer with Commissioner Natividad.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioners Bennagen and Natividad are requested to
confer.
In the meantime, may we proceed to another amendment and we will call
this amendment later on?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my amendment is on page 3, line 9 of Section

5. After the word shall add HEREAFTER BE KNOWN AS SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR. The rest
of the sentence will read: It shall continue to function and exercise its
powers as NOW OR HEREAFTER MAY BE provided by law, except those
conferred on the
office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.
The reason for this, Madam President, is that we have already changed the
name of the Sandiganbayan to Anti-Graft Court under Section 4 of the draft.
So,
to harmonize the changes and to remove confusion arising from the use of
the word Tanodbayan with respect to the prosecutorial function of the
office, it
is believed that the term SPECIAL PROSECUTOR will be a happier choice.
I request the Committee to accept the amendment if it is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the reaction of the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the amendment reflects the Committees
thinking. It is time for us to restate here for the record that it has been
brought to
our attention by Commissioners Concepcion and Bacani that the Tanodbayan
is already identified with Ombudsman and, therefore, we should retain
Ombudsman or
Tanodbayan and rename the prosecutorial office as Special Prosecutor. In
view of this, Madam President, the Committee is accepting the amendment.
MR. FOZ: Just a point of inquiry about the change of nomenclature from
Tanodbayan to Special Prosecutor. In effect, we are now reducing the status
of the
Tanodbayan to a mere special prosecutor.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I answer that because I believe this is
an important point.
What the present proposal of the Committee does is to separate two
functions presently in the office of the Tanodbayan, which is the prosecutory
and other
functions related to it and separating it from the pure Ombudsman functions
which are enumerated now in the Constitution. What we are saying is, the
office
of the Ombudsman as presently contemplated in the Constitution will
continue to be named Tanodbayan and the prosecutory function will be put in
another
office which, as proposed now, will be called Special Prosecutor. The present
Tanodbayan may end up as the Ombudsman of the Tanodbayan.
MR. FOZ: But under this provision now, he will just be a mere special
prosecutor.
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President, I think the statement is not accurate.
MR. FOZ: But that is the phrase used; that is the nomenclature used.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, because the function has been divided. So, it is not the
same person and the same office anymore.
MR. FOZ: We know for a fact that at present the Tanodbayan enjoys the rank
of a justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court, so if we reduce the office to
that of a special prosecutor, attached to the Anti-Graft Court under this
provision, then the effect would be to reduce his rank from that of a justice of
the Intermediate Appellate Court to a mere member or officer of the
Prosecution Division of the Ministry of Justice.
MR. MONSOD: That does not follow, Madam President. The constitutional
provision is silent as to the rank; that may be provided by law. It does not
automatically follow that if he is a special prosecutor, he is at a certain level
as one in the Ministry of Justice.
MR. FOZ: This is really the question, Madam President: In the case of the
Sandiganbayan which, under the 1973 Constitution was authorized to be
established
by the legislature, there is no provision here for the establishment of such a
court previously called Sandiganbayan but now to be renamed as Anti-Graft
Court. Do I take it that it will be something that will be left to the discretion of
the legislature, whether to establish or not, there being no longer
any constitutional mandate for the establishment of such a court?
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I answer the question?
The office of the Sandiganbayan under the provisions we have approved will
be like this: We are not deducting any jurisdictional powers from the
Sandiganbayan presently existing; we are just changing the name, just that.
MR. FOZ: It is just a change of name?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes.

MR. FOZ: So, the constitutional mandate for the creation of collegiate courts
still remains?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: And in the case of the Tanodbayan whose name has been changed
also, the office for such an officer or official is also mandated by this
Constitution?
MR. COLAYCO: That is correct.
I would like to point out though that actually we are not depriving the present
position of Tanodbayan, or which the Commissioner is now proposing to be
called Special Prosecutor, of any powers that it has not been exercising. We
are only taking away those which he has not been able to perform under the
present setup.
MR. RODRIGO: My question is related to the question of Commissioner Foz. In
the case of the Sandiganbayan, according to Section 4 of the proposal, its
name
is changed but its jurisdiction is not changed. So, the last sentence of Section
4 reads: It shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as
provided by law. But in Section 5, not only is the name of Tanodbayan
changed but its functions are reduced because according to Section 6 of the
1973
Constitution, which is reproduced in Section 5:
The Batasang Pambansa shall create an office of the Ombudsman, to be
known as Tanodbayan, which shall receive and investigate complaints
relative to public
office, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, make
appropriate recommendations, and in case of failure of justice as defined by
law, file and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil, or administrative
case before the proper court or body.
According to the proposed amendment, the function of the Tanodbayan as
renamed will only be prosecutory. So, that is a diminution of the powers of
the
Tanodbayan.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, it is, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: So, we are reducing the powers of the Tanodbayan here?
MR. MONSOD: As defined in the 1973 Constitution, they are being reduced in
this new Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Was the attention of Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez called to the
fact that the functions will be reduced, or was it that when he appeared he
was
under the impression that there will only be created an Ombudsman?
MR. MONSOD: I suppose that is the reason he wrote the letter.
MR. RODRIGO: But in his letter that I read, my impression is not that he did
not have the impression that the powers of the Tanodbayan, of his office
now,
will be reduced. From the tenor of the letter, his impression was that there
would be duplication of the functions of that office, and he said there is no
need to create another office. All that the Tanodbayan needs, he says, is
added appropriation.
MR. MONSOD: I suppose the answer to that is, the premise of his letter is
wrong but it is clear that he recognizes the two functions, and this
constitutional provision now will make that explicit.
MR. RODRIGO: But then, another problem arises. We make the Tanodbayan,
as renamed, a prosecuting arm. So, this will just be a duplication of the work
of
the fiscals under the Ministry of Justice.
MR. MONSOD: I believe we discussed that issue earlier. That is another issue
unrelated to what is being discussed but, in any case, we believe that a
special prosecutor for anti-graft cases is still needed because that is a
specialization and there are many cases now falling under the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. During the hearings of the Committee, which were
attended by Tanodbayan Justice Gonzalez and also Sandiganbayan Justice
Garchitorena, it was highlighted that there is a need for specialization in antigraft cases.
MR. RODRIGO: So, do I take it that the functions of the Tanodbayan will not
only be reduced to purely prosecutory functions but they will further be
limited to prosecution of anti-graft cases? Is that it?
MR. MONSOD: That is the intent, Madam President, of renaming the
Sandiganbayan as the Anti-Graft Court and the prosecutory arm as the
Special Prosecutor in
anti-graft cases.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO: So, may I just make a resume? Do I get it right that the
powers of the Tanodbayan under the 1973 Constitution to receive and
investigate
complaints relative to public officials and make recommendations are
taken away and these will be limited not only to prosecution of special cases
but
anti-graft cases?
MR. MONSOD: That is what the Tanodbayan is limited to prosecute now. In
fact, if one were to read through the letter of Justice Gonzalez, he himself
conceives the prosecution to be limited within the confines of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act.
MR. RODRIGO: And other cases then will be filed with the Sandiganbayan. Is
that correct?
MR. FOZ: In connection with that, Madam President, there is another point.
MR. RODRIGO: No, not yet; I just want to clarify.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Foz please allow Commissioner Rodrigo
to finish first?
MR. FOZ: There is one point in connection with the matter being raised by
Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: Just a minute. I am not yet through, but I am willing to wait.
MR. FOZ: Yes, the question was whether the Special Prosecutor, the former
Tanodbayan, will be limited to prosecution of anti-graft cases; in other words,
cases arising from violations of our present law, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. But actually even our Constitution on the Tanodbayan provides
that it shall have jurisdiction on offenses involving public officials and
employees committed in relation to the performance of their office. So, it is
not just mere anti-graft cases, but offenses involving performance of the
functions of office by public officers and employees.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, perhaps we should restate our answer. We
stand corrected on that. What we are saying here in the provisions is that the
functions exercised by the present Tanodbayan will continue, except those
that have been separated from it by reason of the establishment of the
Ombudsman
under this concept. And that would include violations under Article VII of the
Revised Penal Code, referring to the performance by public officials of
their duties.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us allow Commissioner Rodrigo to finish and then maybe
we can have the other speakers.
Please proceed, Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: What is the proposed name for the Tanodbayan?
MR. MONSOD: Special Prosecutor.
MR. RODRIGO: The very name itself implies that its functions will then be
limited to prosecution of special cases only.
I wonder if the Committee will accept an amendment to abolish the
Tanodbayan completely. That is the result of this, because prosecution can be
done by the
fiscals.
MR. MONSOD: If the Commissioner wishes to put that in the form of an
amendment, we will ask the body to decide on it on the floor.
MR. RODRIGO: No, I just wanted to emphasize a point.
REV. RIGOS: That is my amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Was there any amendment by Commissioner
Rodrigo? What was the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo?
REV. RIGOS: No, I will propose the amendment.
MR. BENNAGEN: What is the parliamentary situation?
MR. JAMIR: He is not pursuing his amendment?
MR. RODRIGO: I am not pursuing. I just used that to emphasize the point that
we have emasculated completely the Tanodbayan
THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair inquire from the Chairman of the Committee
what office would have administrative supervision now over the Tanodbayan?
Is there
any office that would have administrative supervision over the Tanodbayan,
as described in Section 5?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, as the decree now reads, no one has
jurisdiction over the Tanodbayan. He may be removed by the President for a
cause.
THE PRESIDENT: So he is directly under the Office of the President?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, because it is the President who may remove him for a
cause. In effect. he comes under the Office of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, the difficulty in Section 5, page 3 is that the
Tanodbayan is understood to be the same as the Ombudsman under the
1973
Constitution, and this reference to Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1973
Constitution contributes to the confusion. I would like to find out whether the
Committee would consider the possibility of just not mentioning the
Tanodbayan at all and instead, in Section 5, we will simply say: THERE IS
HEREBY
CREATED THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, which will be the
prosecution arm of the Ombudsman, without reference to Article XIII of the
1973 Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that is the intent of Section 5. However, the
new Constitution cannot be completely silent on this because the reality is,
there is an office existing; so, somehow, it has to be dealt with, which the
Committee had decided would be a better way to do it, either in the main
body
or in the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution. Those were the options we
had. And the Committee decided that it is better to put it here, so that in
the sequence of the paragraphs, the concepts will stand out on what the
intent of the Committee was.
REV. RIGOS: The Committees decision, as recommended in Section 5,
constitutionalizes Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution which will
precisely avoid confusion.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we wanted to constitutionalize the
Ombudsman, but in the discussions yesterday, it was the preference of the
body that the
1973 Constitution not be mentioned here, and that is the reason we
accepted an amendment from Commissioners Treas and Regalado.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Jamir still has three amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Committee accepted the first proposed
amendment?
MR. MONSOD: We have accepted it, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, then we submit it to a vote first before we proceed to
the next amendment.
Will Commissioner Jamir please read the proposed amendment?
MR. JAMIR: The proposed amendment, Madam President, reads: The
Tanodbayan, created pursuant to the mandate of Section 6 of Article XIII.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that has been changed. May I read it?
MR. JAMIR: Yes, please.
MR. MONSOD: The Tanodbayan, PRESENTLY EXISTING, SHALL HEREAFTER
BE KNOWN AS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. IT shall continue to function and
exercise its powers as
NOW OR MAY HERE AFTER BE provided by law, except those conferred on the
office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 24 votes in favor and 4 votes against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: May I be recognized for a clarification regarding the creation of
the Office of Special Prosecutor. Is my understanding clear to the effect
that the functions of this office is different from the Office of the State
Prosecutor? This is for purposes of the record because the Office of the State
Prosecutor is under the Ministry of Justice and the Office of Special
Prosecutor that we are creating under Section 5 is a constitutional body.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, they are separate and, in effect, the Special Prosecutor is
a mandated office by the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the Office of Special Prosecutor will handle
exclusively graft and corruption cases, unlike the case of the State
Prosecutor
which could handle any and all kinds of criminal cases to avoid overlapping
of functions.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, that is correct. He will handle all of the prosecution that
comes to the Sandiganbayan by virtue of the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
MR. SUAREZ: So, that will exclude or preclude the state prosecutors from
acting as prosecutors in the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
MR. SUAREZ: That is clear.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: But will that also preclude the state prosecutors from acting as
special prosecutors?
MR. ROMULO: I think the Special Prosecutor may appoint such deputies as he
may choose. So, in that way, the so-called State Prosecutor could be utilized
by
the Special Prosecutor, if he likes.
MR. SUAREZ: It might be a little confusing. May I suggest that this matter be
further clarified, because there could be a duplication of functions between
the Office of the Special Prosecutor which is constitutional in character and
the Office of the State Prosecutor which is only under the Ministry of
Justice.
MR. ROMULO: Let us put it this way. They are separate offices; we do not
intend to get them mixed up. The Special Prosecutors Office is really the
Tanodbayans office now.
MR. SUAREZ: So, let us go to a specific case, Madam President, because this
is important for the record. Let us say an anti-graft case is filed against a
public official, Juan de la Cruz, so that will be handled by the Special
Prosecutors Office.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, as is the present practice.
MR. SUAREZ: And when the formal complaint is filed with the Anti-Graft
Court, the one who will appear to prosecute that will be the Special
Prosecutor and
not the State Prosecutor?
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: May I add a point of information on that based on
Commissioner Suarez observation?
MR. REGALADO: The present practice of the Tanodbayan, which will now be
known as the Special Prosecutor, is to deputize Or designate provincial
fiscals in
remote areas of the Philippines to handle the preliminary investigation. But
the actual prosecution in the Sandiganbayan is handled by the Tanodbayan
now
this is supposed to be called the Special Prosecutor to prevent the need
for people in the provinces to come to Manila just for preliminary
investigation. That is the present practice now.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Jamir has the floor. May we
finish his amendments?
MR. GUINGONA: This is just in reaction to the remarks of Commissioner
Regalado where he spoke about deputation. Since there are two separate
bodies under
different jurisdictions one under the Ministry of Justice and the other
apparently under the Office of the President I was wondering whether the
Special Prosecutor now could deputize even without the approval of the
Minister of Justice.
MR. ROMULO: That is the present practice now.
MR. REGALADO: May I add to that? The practice is based on the rules of the
Tanodbayan. But, of course, before they can deputize a particular provincial
or
city fiscal in any of the provinces outside Manila, they usually get the
concurrence of the Minister of Justice to determine the availability and the
number of the fiscals in that particular region.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the next amendment of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. JAMIR: My next amendment is with respect to the name Ombudsman. I
propose that the word TANODBAYAN be placed before the word
Ombudsman and that the
word Ombudsman be enclosed in parentheses. My reason is that the 1971
Constitutional Convention used the name Tanodbayan as the most
appropriate
translation in Pilipino for the word Ombudsman.
THE PRESIDENT: Which section then Section 5?
MR. JAMIR: It should apply to all sections of the proposal, beginning with
Section 2, line 14.
THE PRESIDENT: All references to Ombudsman should be preceded by the
word TANODBAYAN?
MR. JAMIR: And the word Ombudsman should be enclosed in parentheses.
MR. MONSOD: Would the proponent be willing to say TANODBAYAN OR
Ombudsman? We are suggesting that because in over 50 countries, the
word Ombudsman has
acquired a certain international meaning and practice.
MR. JAMIR: I welcome the Committees suggestion.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I be recognized for a question?
MR. RODRIGO: There is already an existing Office of the Tanodbayan which is
called Ombudsman in the 1973 Constitution. I think this office will continue
to
exist. Under what section will it exist: Section 5 or Section 6?
MR. MONSOD: It will continue to exist under Section -5. It will now be called
Special Prosecutor and the new Office of the Ombudsman or Tanodbayan is
the
one that is mandated as a creation of this Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this emasculated office will continue to exist under
Section 5.
Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to introduce an amendment to the accepted
amendment, the idea being that it would not look elegant to indicate Office
of the
Ombudsman or Tanodbayan. Why do we not just say OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN TO BE KNOWN AS THE TANODBAYAN so we do not have to use
the word or in the
stationery of the Ombudsman?
MR. MONSOD: We accept the amendment.
MR. ROMULO: If Commissioner Jamir accepts it, we will accept.
MR. JAMIR: I have already expressed my agreement with the Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, this is just an amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Jamir who speaks of the Tanodbayan as the
Ombudsman. However,
Section 11 defines the Ombudsman as the champion of the people. When he
speaks of Tanodbayan, he is referring to a protector or guardian. Tanod
means
guardian or watchman, not champion. Is Commissioner Jamir willing to
accept the word LINGKOD-BAYAN which would embrace all concepts tanod,
guardian,
watchman or anything?
MR. MONSOD: We regret that the Committee cannot accept that. It will just
lead to confusion.
MR. SARMIENTO: For clarity and simplicity, I withdraw the amendment.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair hear the amendment of Commissioner

Davide.
MR. MONSOD: The amendment states: On line 11, it will say . . . conferred
on the office of the Ombudsman TO BE KNOWN AS TANODBAYAN. Then the
subsequent
adjustments will be made wherever the word Ombudsman appears.
THE PRESIDENT: Just for clarification, what happens now to the word
Tanodbayan in Section 5?
MR. MONSOD: The Tanodbayan under Section 5 shall hereafter be known
as Special Prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT: Instead of Tanodbayan?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Will Commissioner Jamir accept as an amendment to his
amendment the word TANGGOL-BAYAN instead of Tanodbayan to avoid any
confusion among
the Members?
MR. JAMIR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized:
MR. JAMIR: I will be happy to accept the proposed amendment, but my
amendment has been accepted by the Committee and it is now for the
Committee to accept
or reject the proposal of Commissioner Bacani.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment of
Commissioner Bacani?
MR. ROMULO: Will the Commissioner explicate what that word means?
BISHOP BACANI: When I consulted the Committee yesterday to know the
literal meaning of the word Ombudsman, I was told by two members of the
Committee
that its literal translation is protector of the people. So, if we wish to convey
the idea of a protector of the people, the word TANGGOL-BAYAN should be
used. It would be more expressive than Tanodbayan. Besides the word

TANGGOL-BAYAN connotes more the idea of championing the cause of the
people. That is
why I propose TANGGOL-BAYAN.
It was 2:31 p.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that the Chairman of the Committee,
Commissioner Monsod, be recognized.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF COMMISSIONER GUINGONA
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to stand on a question of
privilege. Last Saturday I stood up to suggest the appropriate term for
Ombudsman,
and I was informed by the Chairman of the Committee that they could not
accept it because they would like to defer and refer the matter to the
Committee on
Style. I did not press my amendment, but today they are considering and
even accepting a name. I do not see why there should be any discrimination
against
me. The name that I proposed was sent to the Committee on Style but when
another Commissioner proposed a name, the Committee is now considering
whether or
not they would accept it. I suggest that every name that is presented should
be referred to the Committee on Style.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair was about to call the attention of the body
regarding this proposed amendment of Commissioner Guingona that was
presented
yesterday and the Chair was going to suggest that this be a joint amendment
of Commissioner Guingona and other Commissioners who have also

proposed names.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we now be given a chance to speak?
MR. MONSOD: We had the floor before and we were interrupted. Before we
were interrupted we were about to say that we were proposing to retain
temporarily
or provisionally the phrase Ombudsman, TO BE KNOWN AS TANODBAYAN
and then to refer it to the Committee on Style as we had earlier suggested
and agreed
upon last Saturday. We have one month to think over the possible options
including TANGGOL-BAYAN in order for us to really reflect on what would be
a
good name for this Ombudsman. That was the proposition we were going to
say before we were interrupted.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, in the first place, I did not interrupt,
because the honorable Chairman has not started speaking yet.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we were the ones recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: This is a matter of privilege, and I think this should precede
the comments of the honorable Chairman.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman has already explained and the Chair believes
that there is no intention to discriminate against anyone. In fact, we
suspended
the session so that the Commissioners may be able to confer on this issue
about the names.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I respectfully submit Bishop Bacanis
view to which I concurred. This matter of changing the name cannot be
referred to
the Committee on Style. I do not think that the Chairman of the Committee
or even this Commission can share its responsibility of deciding a name or
pass
it on to the Committee on Style. That is not the function of the Committee on
Style.
THE PRESIDENT: We now go to the pending amendment. Who proposed the
amendment? Was it Commissioner Jamir?
MR. JAMIR: I proposed the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: May we speak, Madam President?

MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I thought the honorable Commissioner
complained on a matter of privilege because he wanted us to follow the
original agreement
last Saturday of referring his proposal to the Committee on Style. Is he now
taking the position that that referral is out of order?
THE PRESIDENT: To clarify the situation once and for all, the Chair believes
that there was a proposed amendment of Commissioner Guingona about the
name
Bantaybayan and the resolution or action taken by the Committee was that
the same would be referred to the Committee on Style.
This afternoon there is a proposed amendment with respect to the name,
which resurrects the whole idea again. The Chair believes that there is merit
to
what Commissioner Guingona said that this name, referring to the office of
the Ombudsman, is one that cannot just be referred to the Committee on
Style and
that the matter should be decided by the body now.
Would the body decide to change the name Ombudsman or retain it, as
explained by the Chairman considering that it has acquired an international
connotation or meaning? So, what is the amendment of Commissioner Jamir,
with respect to the name?
MR. JAMIR: My proposed amendment is to add the word TANODBAYAN before
the word Ombudsman and to enclose the word Ombudsman with
parentheses. However, I
accepted the suggestion of the Committee that the word OR be placed
between TANODBAYAN and Ombudsman. Then, it was subsequently
reamended by
Commissioner Davide.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the amendment of Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: It should read: Ombudsman TO BE KNOWN AS TANODBAYAN.
THE PRESIDENT: So, those two names are being kept.
MR. JAMIR: I think the Committee accepted that amendment of Commissioner
Davide.

BISHOP BACANI: It was at that point that I suggested TANGGOL-BAYAN as an
amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Jamir, and I thought he
accepted the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So, that was the time when we called a suspension of the
session. May the Chair know the result of the conference, if there was any,
on this
name to be given to the Ombudsman?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: The consensus reached was to give it to the Committee on
Style. But since we are now deciding on that, we would rather that the body
vote on
the name.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of this particular proposed amendment,
Ombudsman TO BE KNOWN AS TANODBAYAN. please raise their hand.
(Several Members
raised their hand.)
MR. RODRIGO: I register my abstention.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 28 votes in favor, 6 against and 1
abstention.
Just for the record: those in favor of TANGGOL-BAYAN, please raise their
hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 28 votes in favor of the term TANODBAYAN for
Ombudsman and 9 votes in favor of TANGGOL-BAYAN.
The amendment which reads Ombudsman TO BE KNOWN AS TANODBAYAN
is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a minor point of parliamentary inquiry.
Since we have already approved that the word Ombudsman should be
known as Tanodbayan, what happens now to the original Tanodbayan?
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner asking about the existing Tanodbayan?
MR. MAAMBONG: We will have two Tanodbayans now.
MR. MONSOD: May we answer the question, Madam President?
MR. MONSOD: This is the third time we have answered that question. Section
5 is the relevant article. The original Tanodbayan would be known as the
Special
Prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment by Commissioner Jamir?
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my next amendment is an insertion of a new
subparagraph after subparagraph 5 of Section 12 on page 5, and it reads: TO
FIND
WAYS AND MEANS OF REDUCING RED TAPE IN GOVERNMENT OPERATION
AND IN GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS.
MR. SARMIENTO: Is Commissioner Jamir willing to accept an amendment to
his amendment?
MR. JAMIR: I would be glad to hear it first.
MR. SARMIENTO: This amendment is sponsored by this Member and
cosponsored by Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion.
The additional provision will read: TO EXAMINE AND STUDY THE ACTUAL
OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO
ENSURE EFFICIENCY,
COORDINATION OF VARIOUS OFFICES, AND CORRECT IRREGULARITIES AND

PRACTICES.
Madam President and Chairman of the Committee, the purpose of this
amendment is that the Ombudsman has three functions; namely, as
mobilizer, watchdog and
official critic. The first two functions, mobilizer and watchdog, are reflected in
the enumeration of functions, but the function as official critic,
meaning, making recommendations to cut red tape and to improve
efficiency, is not.
So, is Commissioner Jamir willing to accept the amendment to his
amendment?
MR. JAMIR: I deeply regret that I cannot accept the proposed amendment
because it will, in effect, overload the Tanodbayan or the Sandiganbayan or
the
Ombudsman with duties far beyond the comprehension of the Committee as
stated in this proposal.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, to consolidate our proposals, may I ask
for a suspension of the session?
It was 2:50 p.m.
At 2:57 p.m. the session was resumed.
MR. DE CASTRO: This is just a matter of information, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
This morning, we approved Commissioner Oples amendment on Section 6,

lines 13 to 16, that a separate deputy for the military be created. On Section
8, we
said that the Ombudsman and his deputies shall be members of the Bar with
at least 10 years of law practice. I doubt whether we could have in the
military
somebody who is a member of the Philippine Bar and has engaged in law
practice for at least 10 years. I know that there are several members of the
Bar in
active duty now but they do not have 10 years of law practice. I know of
several retired officers who are members of the Bar but they do not practice
their
profession. So the choice here will be very limited.
MR. MONSOD: I think that in Section 8, the requirement of at least 10 years
as judge or a 10-year experience in the practice of law is only for the
Ombudsman but not for his deputies. The only requirement for the deputies
is that they be members of the Philippine Bar.
THE PRESIDENT: Does he have to be a military man?
MR. MONSOD: No, he does not have to be a military man and need not have
practiced law for 10 years or need not have been a judge for 10 years.
Section 8 has been corrected, amended and accepted.
MR. DE CASTRO: Will the Commissioner please read the correction?
MR. MONSOD: Section 8, as amended, now reads: The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of
their
appointments, at least forty years old, with recognized probity and
independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been
candidates for
any elective office in the immediately preceding election.
The Ombudsman refers to just one person.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: With reference to Section 3, regarding the procedure and
the substantive provisions on impeachment, I understand there have been
many
proposals and, I think, these would need some time for Committee action.
However, I would just like to indicate that I submitted to the Committee a
resolution on impeachment proceedings, copies of which have been
furnished the
Members of this body. This is borne out of my experience as a member of the
Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government which took
charge of the
last impeachment resolution filed before the First Batasang Pambansa. For
the information of the Committee, the resolution covers several steps in the
impeachment proceedings starting with initiation, action of the Speaker,
committee action, calendaring of report, voting on the report, transmitting
referral to the Senate, trial and judgment by the Senate.
I feel very strongly that the proposal I submitted will more or less solve the
problem which was also the problem of the First Batasang Pambansa. In the
formulation of these proposed provisions, I consulted the Rules of the House
of Representatives and the Rules of the Senate of the United States.
There are features which seem to be objectionable to the Committee.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I suggest that in the interest of a more coherent
debate, we go back to the procedure of anterior amendments. Right now
what we are doing
is by random amendments. I still have two pending amendments and now
we are already discussing the proposal of Commissioner Maambong. I think
we are
sacrificing the quality of the debate.
MR. RAMA: We have not followed the old procedure because those who came
here to register did not indicate which section they are going to amend.
In the case of Commissioner Bennagen, he is supposed to coordinate with
Commissioner Natividad for a certain amendment. I do not know whether or
not he has
already done that. He has two more amendments. I am under the impression
that he has not yet consulted with Commissioner Natividad.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Bennagen say?
MR. BENNAGEN: I did, as a matter of fact, I have already informed the Floor
Leader that I already made consultations with Commissioner Natividad, but
this
is for another amendment. It does not refer to the subject matter that we
discussed earlier, which was for the insertion of a subsection present in
Committee Report No. 16 but not included in Committee Report No. 17. We
have not acted on that. I gave in to the amendments of Commissioner Jamir
because
those had to do with the decision on the name of the office.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of the Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: I think the Commissioner has still two more amendments. So I ask
that he be recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, what is now the procedure? Shall we
defer this after Commissioner Bennagen has spoken, or shall we revert now
to the process
of anterior amendments?
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is calling the Commissioners in accordance
with their having signified their intention to propose amendments. So the
Chair
believes that we will just continue the procedure that has been employed
and followed by the Floor Leader, at least, for this afternoon. But inasmuch
as
Commissioner Bennagen is already on the floor, we will continue considering
his amendments.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I be clarified as to the method of proposing
amendments, because my belief is that there is a certain logical sequence in
the articles?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the Commissioners proposed amendment that he

wants the body to consider now? The Commissioner has several
amendments.
MR. BENNAGEN: Before we go to the amendments, I want to be clarified first
as to the method of proposing amendments to be followed. Should we go
back to
the process of anterior amendments or the random amendments that we
have been following for a number of days?
MR. RAMA: The list of Commissioners who registered was made last Saturday.
So, I suggest that we just follow the sequence as they are listed.
MR. BENNAGEN: For now.
MR. RAMA: Yes, for now.
THE PRESIDENT: In fact, this morning, we gave Commissioner Ople all the
time to finish his amendments. So, that is the procedure we will try to follow
this
afternoon. The Chair has already recognized Commissioner Bennagen, so he
may submit his amendments now.
MR. BENNAGEN: Is it my understanding also that after this, we will go back to
the process of anterior amendments?
THE PRESIDENT: Whether it is anterior or posterior, we are just calling the
Commissioners as listed.
MR. JAMIR: Excuse me, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Jamir through already?
MR. JAMIR: Not yet, Madam President. When the session was suspended, I
had the floor, and we went into a huddle with the other proponents of other
matters
similar to mine. We have agreed now, and I would like to proceed with it.
THE PRESIDENT: On what particular section?

MR. BENNAGEN: I am making a formal motion that after the deliberations on
the Article on Accountability of Public Officers we will go back to the
procedure
of anterior amendments, section by section. I think that is more orderly and
that respects the logical sequence of the articles.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of Commissioner
Bennagen that after this particular Article on Accountability of Public Officers,
we
shall follow the procedure although we have not followed that procedure
of proceeding section by section? Is that how I understand the
Commissioners
motion?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, Madam President.
motion is approved.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President. May I now go back to my
amendment.
Somehow I lost my way after that semantic confusion about the Tanodbayan.
My amendment is on page 4, Section 12. After line 24, insert Section 6(a) of
the earlier Committee Report No. 16, which reads as follows: TO
INVESTIGATE ON
ITS OWN OR ON COMPLAINT BY ANY PERSON, ANY ACT OR OMISSION OF ANY
PUBLIC OFFICIAL, EMPLOYEE, OFFICE OR AGENCY WHEN SUCH ACT OR
OMISSION IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST,
IMPROPER OR INEFFICIENT; and this was previously accepted by the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Has it been accepted?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that is a restatement of the first draft of the
Committee and the proposal of Commissioner Bennagen is to restate it. The
Committee accepts the proposal.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the body vote on this?

BISHOP BACANI: The phrase WHEN SUCH ACT OR OMISSION IS ILLEGAL
seems the only investigatory phrase that seems to already prejudge the
outcome. Can we use
a better phrase such as SUSPECTED TO BE ILLEGAL or APPEARS TO BE
ILLEGAL?
MR. BENNAGEN: The Committee takes jurisdiction over that since it has
accepted the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner read the proposed amendment
again?
MR. BENNAGEN: My proposed amendment by insertion reads: TO
INVESTIGATE ON ITS OWN OR ON COMPLAINT BY ANY PERSON, ANY ACT OR
OMISSION OF ANY PUBLIC
OFFICIAL, EMPLOYEE, OFFICE OR AGENCY WHEN SUCH ACT OR OMISSION IS
ILLEGAL, UNJUST, IMPROPER OR INEFFICIENT.
BISHOP BACANI: May I suggest that this be amended by using the phrase
ALLEGED TO BE.
MR. COLAYCO: Or we might add APPEARS TO BE.
MR. BENNAGEN: I accept.
THE PRESIDENT: It is accepted.
approved.
Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: The next amendment is already incorporated in a group
amendment to be presented by Commissioner Jamir. So, I request that
Commissioner Jamir
be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has no other amendment?
MR. BENNAGEN: I will read into the record some of the reasons after
Commissioner Jamir shall have presented the amendment.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my amendment will be an amendment by
insertion. On page 5, after Section 12 (5), insert the following: TO
DETERMINE AND MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF HIGH STANDARDS OF ETHICS
AND EFFICIENCY AND TO ELIMINATE THE ROOT CAUSES OF INEFFICIENCY,
RED TAPE, MISMANAGEMENT,
FRAUDS AND CORRUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT.
This is a consolidation of the proposals of Commissioners Natividad,
Sarmiento, Bennagen, Concepcion and myself.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee accepts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
approved.
MR. JAMIR: My last amendment is to be inserted after the last portion of the
proposal and it reads: THE TANODBAYAN OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, OTHER
THAN THE
DEPUTIES, SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE TANODBAYAN ACCORDING TO THE
CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
MR. ROMULO: Is the Commissioner subjecting the Tanodbayan Deputies to
the Civil Service?
MR. JAMIR: No, precisely, it says: THE TANODBAYAN OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES, OTHER THAN THE DEPUTIES, SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE
TANODBAYAN ACCORDING TO THE
CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
MR. ROMULO: We accept.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you.
approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, before I was interrupted I was saying
that the proposed provision on impeachment which I have submitted to the
Committee
might have some objectionable points because some of the members say it
is unduly long. However, I would just like to indicate for the record that I am
doing this precisely to correct the deficiencies which happened in the last
Regular Batasang Pambansa.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there copies of this proposed amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have copies.
MR. MAAMBONG: Right now we have three proposals: the proposal of
Commissioner Regalado, that of Commissioner Davide and my own proposal.
In order to save
time for the Committee I am now formally asking that this six-paragraph
provision which has exactly the same number of paragraphs that is now
being
indicated in the committee report except for paragraph 7 which is on rulemaking be inserted in the Record. Then I ask that we defer the consideration
of
this until the three proposals have been worked out by the Committee.
I will not proceed to another amendment, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee has sat down with
Commissioners Davide and Regalado regarding the draft. The only difference
between that
formulation and that of Commissioner Maambong is on the question of the
need for an investigation before it goes into the Order of Business and it is a
little bit shorter.
So, if Commissioner Maambong is willing to accept that insertion in the

version of Commissioners Davide and Regalado, we may already have the
proposal
subject only to whatever refinements of style may be done by the Committee
on Style.
MR. MAAMBONG: Now that the Commissioner has mentioned it, I might as
well inform the Chair that the reason I am insisting that before a complaint is
formally received by the legislature, it has to be accompanied by a resolution
of a number of Members of the House is that it is the standard procedure
under the Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States of
which I have a copy here. If we do not follow this procedure by a resolution,
the
resultant effect would be that impeachable officers will be subject to
harassment because of baseless charges. We can just imagine if any Tom,
Dick and
Harry will just pay P5 to a notary public to verify a complaint, and when the
complaint reaches the legislature it will go immediately into the Order of
Business. What will happen to all our impeachable officers? That is why we
indicated that we need something like one-fifth of the membership or even a
lower number to sign a resolution with which the verified complaint of the
citizen or a member will be attached. That is the normal procedure all
throughout the parliaments of the world.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we believe we are close to a formulation
here. May we request Commissioner Davide to inform us of the status of the
reconciliation?
MR. DAVIDE: The reconciliation could be easily accomplished by merely
inserting a comma (,) after Members in the Committee modification, and
the words
UPON A RESOLUTION OF INDORSEMENT BY ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
after the word citizen. That would take care of everything.
MR. MAAMBONG: I do not want to debate on this point right now. I would
rather ask the Committee members to go over the three proposals maybe a
few minutes
from now so they can put in the exact wording so that we will not waste so
much time, Madam President. The proposal of Commissioner Davide is more
or less
acceptable but I am also concerned of the presentation of the totality of the
Rules on Impeachment because I am sorry to use the word-it seems to be a
very
confusing proposal. The proposal I have put forward took me several hours,
in fact the whole day yesterday, to formulate based on my experience as a
member
of the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government, so I ask

the Committee to look at it closely.
I will now proceed to another amendment which is very simple.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, so we will defer this particular amendment.
MR. MONSOD: We will abide by the request of the Commissioner.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We now go to the next amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to propose an amendment on page 4, Section 11, line 15, which
is to delete the first clause as champions of the people and in lieu thereof
to insert the following phrase: SHALL GIVE EFFECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND
TO PROMOTE HIGHER
STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
The reason for this is that this statement is a constitutional provision. In fact,
I
called the attention of the Committee by way of interpellations of other
Commissioners that this is specifically the function and duty of the
Ombudsman as
constitutionally mandated elsewhere in the Constitution.
May I know the response of the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: We regret we cannot accept it because if one goes through
the functions of the Ombudsman, including the proposed amendments that
have been
discussed with the Committee, that function in that respect will really come
out. Thus it is not necessary to insert that phrase.
The other point is that last Saturday, Commissioner Quesada raised the point
of whether or not the Ombudsman will preempt people power. We said that it
would be complementary to and supportive of people power. So, we do not
want to identify the Ombudsman as a vehicle for the people to express their
sentiments.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, so that I would not press this
amendment, may I just know from the Committee if one of the functions of
the Ombudsman is to
give effect to the right of the people to petition the government for redress
of grievances and to promote higher standards of integrity and efficiency in
the government service?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then I will not press anymore that amendment. I ask that I
be allowed to withdraw the same.
I will go now to page 5, Section 13, line 23.
I would like to indicate before the Committee that this specific provision in
Section 13 is found in Section 11 of RA 1379 which is an act declaring
forfeiture in favor of the State of any property to have been unlawfully
acquired by any public officer or employee and providing for the procedure
therefor.
Section 11 of RA 1379 says:
Laws on Prescription. The laws concerning acquisitive prescription and
limitation of actions cannot be invoked by, nor shall they benefit the
respondent
in respect of any property unlawfully acquired by him.
Considering the existence of this provision in RA 1379, I wonder if the
Committee would allow that this Section 13 be deleted.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the Commissioner knows the basic distinction between
a statutory provision and a constitutional provision.
MR. MAAMBONG: Very well.
MR. NOLLEDO: I say so because at any time this section can be repealed by
the legislature. Due to the importance of Section 11 of RA 1379, which the
Commissioner correctly quoted, we reproduced the same provision but in
different words in Section 13, page 5 of our committee report so as to
constitutionalize it.
MR. MAAMBONG: I succumb to the answer of Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that the Committee does not feel that this
Section 13 should be eliminated then I would propose its rewording.
So that we do not have to go to the usual procedure of deleting and putting

forward certain words, Section 13, as reworded, would read as follows: THE
LAWS
CONCERNING ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
CANNOT BE INVOKED BY, NOR SHALL THEY BENEFIT PUBLIC OFFICIALS OR
EMPLOYEES, IN RESPECT TO ANY
PROPERTY UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED.
I think this would be more encompassing than the present formulation of
Section 13. As we envision it it will cover acquisitive prescription and
limitation
of actions. This means that the prescription actually covers two things either
a criminal action or a civil action. The way I look at the present
formulation of Section 13, it covers only civil prescription and not criminal
prescription. That is why I am proposing an article on prescription or
nonprescription which will cover both civil and criminal actions.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponent accept some amendments?
MR. MAAMBONG: Gladly.
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment of Section 13 will consist of the following: On
line 25, after the word employees, add the following: OR THEIR COPRINCIPALS,
ACCOMPLICES OR ACCESSORIES OR TO PROSECUTE OFFENSES IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH; then on line 25, after the word prescription, add
a comma (,) and the words
LACHES OR ESTOPPEL. So the entire Section 13 will read as follows: The
right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials
or
employees OR THEIR CO-PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES OR ACCESSORIES OR TO
PROSECUTE OFFENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH shall not be barred by
prescription, LACHES
OR ESTOPPEL.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I inform my distinguished colleagues in the Commission
that all these words were taken into account when we discussed the
provision in the
Committee. I do not know whether it will satisfy them if I say that the
intention of the Committee is to embrace all the consequences, meanings
and
intentions gleaned from the words which they recommended.
They are all contemplated in this provision. I think we should not clutter the
Constitution with words, no matter how beautiful they may be.
MR. MAAMBONG: I think my amendment was cluttered a little bit because of
the proposed amendment to my amendment. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner accepting the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide?
MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that the Commissioner is from Cebu, I would
like to accept it. However, the problem is that he is trying to introduce an
amendment not to my amendment, but to the original provision of Section
13. How in heavens name could I accept that? So, I would rather stick to the
present formulation which I have proposed. Considering that the Committee
did not get a copy of my proposal, I am willing to have this deferred in the
meantime for them to go over my proposal because I still maintain that the
proposal I am putting forward is more encompassing since I practically
copied it
from an existing law and this covers civil and criminal prescriptions.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I have a copy of Section 11 of RA 1379,
known as An Act for Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property, so the
Gentleman
need not furnish me a copy. The provision of Section 13 which the
Commissioner proposes to amend covers both the civil and the criminal
aspects. In
relation to the proposed amendment to the amendment of Commissioner
Davide, we also feel that the property unlawfully acquired by public officials
is
considered res criminis and whoever is in possession of that property,
whether he is an accessory, a principal, an accomplice or otherwise, should
return
the property to the State, and the right of the State to forfeit the same does
not prescribe.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, if the purpose of the Committee is to
really encompass civil and criminal actions in relation to the
nonprescriptibility, I
suggest that the Committee take seriously the proposal. Anyway, what is
wrong with improving the provision at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that the point of the Committee is that it
prefers a simple presentation of the whole issue. The Committee believes
that
what are included in the Commissioners proposed statement are already
included in the simple sentence of Section 13.
MR. MAAMBONG: With that assurance and unless Commissioner Davide will
not press his amendment to my amendment, I am willing to withdraw, with
the
understanding that this provision of Section 13 covers nonprescriptibility of
civil and criminal actions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Commissioner for his magnanimity.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to insist on my proposal for the plain and simple
reason that the republic act on forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth would cover only
the civil aspect. As a matter of fact, any prosecution for the criminal aspect
of that will have to be taken under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. That is why it is necessary to include here, specifically, the criminal
action and the imprescriptibility of the criminal action. Besides, what is
stated in the law on ill-gotten wealth and recovery thereof would refer to
prescription or statute of limitations. We know for a fact that there are two
other concepts in Civil Law. We have laches and estoppel. Laches, for
instance, is a concept entirely different from prescription. While an action
may not
prescribe, it may be barred by laches and while an action may not prescribe
or may not be barred by laches, it may also be a limitation because of
estoppel. So, if we really want to strengthen this particular concept, we
should be very specific in having it related to both criminal and civil actions.
In addition to prescription, we should also include laches and estoppel.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the issue has been sufficiently debated.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide state his proposed amendment to
Section 13?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment will be on line 25 alone. After the
word employees, add the following: OR THEIR CO-PRINCIPALS
ACCOMPLICES OR
ACCESSORIES OR TO PROSECUTE OFFENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Then after the word prescription, add a comma (,) and the words LACHES
OR ESTOPPEL. So, the
entire section will read: The right of the State to recover properties
unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, THEIR CO-PRINCIPALS,
ACCOMPLICES OR ACCESSORIES OR TO PROSECUTE OFFENSES IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH shall not be barred by prescription, LACHES OR
ESTOPPEL.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it accepted by the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: After consultations, the Committee is happy to announce that
we are accepting the amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President; I also thank the members of the
Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I wish to propose an amendment to
Section 6 on page 3, line 15. Between the words and and one, insert the
words AT
LEAST.
In the period of sponsorship and debate last Saturday, Commissioner Rodrigo
spoke very forcefully pointing out that the office of the Ombudsman will be
quite powerless because it will have only one deputy for each of these big
subdivisions of the Philippine Archipelago. To remedy that infirmity, may I
suggest that the words AT LEAST be added so that in the future, should the
need arise then, we can easily add more deputies.
So, Section 6 should go this way: There is hereby created the independent
office of the Ombudsman composed of the Ombudsman, one over-all Deputy
and AT
LEAST one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
MR. COLAYCO: We accept.

MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment.
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I think that Commissioner Padilla be
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Madam President.
I am a member of the Committee but I am suggesting a few minor
corrections.
On Section 1, the 1973 Constitution uses the terms responsibility, integrity,
loyalty and efficiency. Our proposed Constitution uses the words fidelity,
integrity and efficiency. Should we not reinsert the omitted words
RESPONSIBILITY and LOYALTY?
MR. ROMULO: We have accepted Commissioner Sarmientos amendment of
PATRIOTISM; so perhaps the concept of loyalty as well as fidelity would
be
included, but we have no objection to RESPONSIBILITY.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Padilla satisfied?
MR. PADILLA: Of course, patriotism is a much stronger word than all of
these words combined, but I think loyalty has a meaning separate from the
all-embracing word patriotism. In other words, the public officer must serve
with responsibility, fidelity, integrity, efficiency and loyalty.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with due respect to the honorable VicePresident and for the information of the members of the Committee, I
checked last
week the meaning and synonym of fidelity, and it is loyalty.
MR. ROMULO: We would be willing to substitute LOYALTY for fidelity.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how will that section read now? What are the words that
have been changed?
MR. PADILLA: Lines 8 and 9 should read . . . utmost RESPONSIBILITY,
integrity, LOYALTY and efficiency.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted?
approved.
MR. PADILLA: On page 2, paragraph 6 of Section 3, from line 23 was copied
from the previous Constitution but I wonder whether the word not on line
24 is
misplaced or is erroneous because this Section 6 speaks of removal from
office and also prosecution. But as it is worded, it says.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than the removal
from office . . . the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject
to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law.
It seems to me that the word not should be deleted to read: shall extend
further than the removal. Then on line 27, change the word-but to AND.
So,
it will read: AND the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable . . .
MR. ROMULO: The sense in using the word not is to convey that the Senate
should not go further than removing the impeachable officer and that the
reserved clause belongs then to his prosecution outside the Senate. That is
why we believe that the original wording of the 1935 Constitution is
appropriate.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Padilla insist?
MR. PADILLA: With that explanation I will not insist on my amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponent yield to an amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe Commissioner Padilla is not insisting on his

proposed amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: I am sorry.
MR. PADILLA: On page 4, lines 14 and 15 state: The Ombudsman and his
Deputies, as champions of the people . . . Can we not find a substitute for
the word
champions? Can we not use DEFENDERS or PROTECTORS? I ask so
because the word champions gives the idea of an athletic competition. Of
course, I like the
word champion because in my youth, I had been in athletic competitions
for many years.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Does the Vice-President have a suggestion? We are open to
any suggestion.
MR. PADILLA: I suggest to change the word champions to PROTECTORS.
MR. ROMULO: We accept.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized. Is it on the same
amendment?
MR. TINGSON: I do not know whether or not I am already late, but that is one
of the amendments I was going to make. It is an amendment by deletion
because
by describing the Ombudsman as the champion or as the protector, the
insinuation would probably be that the other officials just as important are
not
champions of the people. So it seems to me that we should just delete that
and say: The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall act promptly on the
complaints
filed.
MR. ROMULO: We cannot accept that because we are not saying that the
other officials are less capable of being champions of the people, but we
want to
emphasize that the special character of the Ombudsman or Tanodbayan is
that he should be the protector of the people. It is meant to be instructive as

well.
MR. TINGSON: At least the Committee has said so. I will tell the people that
when I campaign for ratification of our Constitution.
While I am on my feet, Madam President, may I proceed? I have just two
simple amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Committee accepted the change of the word
champion to PROTECTOR?
MR. MONSOD: We have accepted, Madam President.
approved.
MR. TINGSON: May I have the floor now?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, sometimes there are so many amendments
and we get lost. We do not know whether the line is still there or not. May I
ask the
Committee if lines 9 and 10 of page I are still there?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, lines 9 and 10, as amended, now read: . . .
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. act with
patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.
MR. TINGSON: My amendment would be to change the word modest to
FRUITFUL, so that it would read: . . . act with justice and lead FRUITFUL
lives. May I
just explain my amendment briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson may proceed.
MR. TINGSON: The word modest carries with it a colonial mentality which,
in a sense, is a negative virtue. It is a weak suggestion for good citizenship
whereas, the word FRUITFUL would be a suggestion of a mandate to be not a
spectator but a participant in a truly free and progressive Philippines.
I am just wondering if the Committee would accept my amendment
changing the word modest to FRUITFUL.
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Efrain
B. Treas.
MR. ROMULO: We regret we cannot accept because there was a specific
resolution filed on this matter by Commissioner Tadeo and the purpose is
really for the
public official to set an example and to avoid conspicuous display of wealth
and power. So, when we say FRUITFUL, it may, in fact, be misunderstood
that
he should aggrandize himself while he is in office because that would be
fruitful indeed, but in the wrong sense.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, if we put some malicious intention to the
word, we can always do that. But I was trying to say that the word
FRUITFUL
carries a mandate not just to be a spectator but a participant to make the
Philippines fruitful. The original proponent of that resolution, Commissioner
Tadeo, may perhaps agree with me.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Gentleman will permit it, the word FRUITFUL is really
subject to malicious implications; it may mean enrichment. That is what we
intend to avoid, Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: There is another one here, Madam President. It has been a
truly inspiring experience to listen to the functions of the Ombudsman and
his
deputies.
Commissioner Sarmiento said he is a mobilizer; he is a watchdog; he is a
critic. Others say he is a reformist; he is a crusader; he is an arbiter. He is,
in other words, a moral superman. He should, therefore, be a man with the
vim, the verve and the vigor of youth. I was going to propose amendments
that
instead of requiring him to be at least 40 years, we require him to be 35
years old; instead of 10 years in practice, we reduce it to 7, if only to satisfy
Commissioners Gascon, Sarmiento, Brocka and Ople that I did not have any
malicious intent when I tried to suggest before that the Senators be 40 years
old
instead of 35.
However, upon consulting the committee members, they say that for
purposes of legal symmetry in the language of Commissioner Nolledo, it has
to be 40 years
old because I understand the office of the Ombudsman is being elevated to
that of a Commissioner. All of them wanted 40 years old. Have they changed
their
minds since I talked to them this morning? Could we change it to 35 years

old, and instead of 10 years of practice, make it 7?
MR. MONSOD: We considered different ages and in a way, it was a judgment
call. But we felt that 40 years might be the appropriate minimum age
because we
are requiring a lot of moral persuasion to be exercised by this person.
Hopefully, he would need some experience and, probably, the age of 40
would be the appropriate age.
MR. TINGSON: Could not the same argument hold when I tried to change the
age requirement for Senator from 35 to 40 years old?
MR. MONSOD: I believe the Gentleman did make the argument but the
judgment of the body was otherwise.
MR. ROMULO: If I may add, we have nothing against youth. In fact, we did
vote with the Gentleman but in this case, they have different functions. The
Senator has no administrative function. The Ombudsman has separate
functions and extensive ones and he needs administrative experience. So,
that is the
reason for the age requirement of 40 years.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Natividad be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Just a minute. It is not comfortable to
be addressed as Madam President. (Laughter) May I suggest that the
Gentleman
address the Chair Mr. Presiding Officer. (Laughter)
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am sorry, Mr. Presiding Officer. I was not looking at the
Chair; I was reading my notes. (Laughter) So, if I have inadvertently or
accidentally changed his gender, I am sorry; I did not mean to change his
sex. I was merely looking at my notes when I took the microphone.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am a little bit bored because all my amendments had

already been presented and I am not even sure if my amendments are still
proper. I do
not mean to change his sex, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): It is all right.
MR. NATIVIDAD: May I present an amendment on page 3, Section 5. I am not
really sure how Section 5 looks now because at the start of this discussion, I
intended to propose an amendment. I intended to improve the situation by
proposing that the Tanodbayan, now the Special Prosecutor, shall and this
is the
phrase I will insert after the word shallFUNCTION AS AN INVESTIGATIVE
AND PROSECUTION ARM OF THE OMBUDSMAN. I am not sure how the whole
section looks
right now or if my amendment is still proper. What I intend to say is that the
Special Prosecutor shall function as an investigation and prosecution arm of
the Ombudsman.
MR. ROMULO: Can we not make it a separate sentence and simply say HE BE
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR?
MR. NATIVIDAD: The Special Prosecutor?
MR. ROMULO: Something like that, as the prosecuting arm of the
Ombudsman.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I will use the word an so the Ombudsman can also assign
investigative functions to any other unit or agency of the government it
might see
fit.
MR. ROMULO: As a prosecutor, meaning. not exclusive.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am using the phrase AS AN INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION ARM OF THE OMBUDSMAN. So. it is not exclusive, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MR. ROMULO: May we add the phrase IN APPROPRIATE CASES, so we have
some discretion on the part of the Ombudsman?
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, the amendment as a separate sentence shall read: THE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR SHALL FUNCTION AS AN INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION ARM OF THE
OMBUDSMAN IN APPROPRIATE CASES.
MR. ROMULO: Would the Gentleman consider leaving him just as a

prosecutor rather than an investigator because we have made quite a point
in saying that the
Ombudsman is the investigator, and the Special Prosecutor is the
prosecutor?
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, as a prosecution arm.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, the amendment will read: THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
SHALL FUNCTION AS A PROSECUTION ARM OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN
APPROPRIATE CASES.
MR. ROMULO: We accept the amendment, and I think that gives him false
teeth at least.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: This morning I was already complaining that we are
emasculating too much the functions of the Tanodbayan. Here we are again
demoting the poor
Tanodbayan as a mere arm of the Ombudsman in special cases. So, if this is
the case, if I were Raul Gonzalez, I would resign my position; I would become
so
useless. I think Commissioner Guingona has a proposed amendment which
might remedy the situation
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Constitutional Commission is
recommending proposals regardless of the wishes of Mr. Gonzalez.
MR. GUINGONA: May I just ask the proponent some questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, Commissioner Guingona is
recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Does this proposal mean that the Special Prosecutor will now
fall under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman?
MR. NATIVIDAD: No.
MR. GUINGONA: Would it still be under the Office of the President as
previously envisioned?
MR. NATIVIDAD: What I understand from my prior conversation with the

Committee is that it does not fall under the Ombudsman.
MR. GUINGONA: So, it will still be under the Office of the President but may
be deputized by the Ombudsman or may also be assigned work by the
Ministry of
Justice.
MR. NATIVIDAD: As to the exact location of the proposed Special Prosecutor, I
think the Committee should respond to this.
MR. MONSOD: The sentence was accepted because it is a recognition that for
the cases that will go to the Sandiganbayan, the prosecution arm is the
Special
Prosecutor. Some people may consider that a redundance not to say
anymore something that is understood but it was a matter of form for us
to accept
because it did confirm or affirm the role of the Special Prosecutor in
appropriate cases.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say something on this.
MR. RODRIGO: Up to now, it has been emphasized that the role of the
Ombudsman is not to prosecute. It is only a sumbungan ng bayan to help
the people and
make the government officials act; but prosecution is not its function. And
now, we are giving it an arm to Prosecute. I do not understand now what the
principal role of the Ombudsman is.
MR. MONSOD: There is a difference between the Ombudsman exercising a
prosecutory function, and saying that in appropriate cases, the Ombudsman
refers to
the Special Prosecutor.
MR. RODRIGO: No, that is different. But to call it the prosecution arm of the
Ombudsman makes a lot of difference.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Maybe we can remove the word ARM.
MR. ROMULO: If we will accept that amendment, it seems the Gentleman
would not want our Ombudsman to have any teeth nor any arm, nor any
unmentionables.
MR. RODRIGO: That is what the Gentleman said. I just want to be consistent
with the definition by the Committee of the functions of the Ombudsman.
MR; MONSOD: We will accept that amendment in order to clarify that
position.
MR. RODRIGO: So, how will the amendment now read?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Maybe . . . the Special Prosecutor shall PROSECUTE CASES
REFERRED TO IT BY THE OMBUDSMAN.
MR. ROMULO: In appropriate cases.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I object to the proposed amendment
because that is already covered by Section 12 (2) on page 5 which reads:
To direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public
official or employee at fault, and to recommend his removal, suspensions
demotion, fine, censure or prosecution, and to see to the compliance of the
directive.
In short, the Ombudsman can direct even the Special Prosecutor to
prosecute the particular complaint concerning which the Ombudsman may
have determined
that an action is proper to be filed.
MR. NATIVIDAD: That is clear, Mr. Presiding Officer. If that is encompassed
within the meaning of that power, maybe I should withdraw the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. maybe the proper thing to do is to withdraw it in view of
that manifestation.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, anyway it is in the record already.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): For the .record, the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Natividad has been withdrawn.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: My questions would pertain to Section 3 on impeachment
procedures.
I have a lot of doubts about the effectivity and validity of the impeachment
procedure as it is now provided for in the Constitution when it adopted
verbatim the procedures in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
Impeachment originated in England but it had been in disuse for one century
and a half ago. In fact, the last time it was used was sometime in the first
years of the 19th century. It had been partly discredited and proven to be
practically obsolete when the English countries adopted the principle of
ministerial responsibility, such that in the trend of legal history, there was a
growing tendency to vest the powers of impeachment, not in the legislature
but in the judiciary. This procedure of vesting impeachment powers in the
legislature found its way in the constitutions of the American colonies and
eventually in the Constitution of the United States.
But let me call the Gentlemans attention to the Philippine experience. In the
Philippines, all of the efforts to impeach the President have been
effectively frustrated by the simple reason of partisanship and political
loyalties. In fact, when there was a serious attempt to impeach President
Quirino
on the grounds of willful breach and deliberate violations of the Constitution,
it was overwhelmingly voted down by the House of Representatives for the
simple reason that the political party in control of the House of
Representatives was the same political party as that of President Quirino.
That experience was very instructive; in fact, it led us to the same conclusion
that impeachment proceedings vested in a legislature are practically futile
and inutile.
The same experience was borne out in the attempt of the Batasan, the
defunct Batasan, to impeach President Marcos. All of these would be
instructive and
indicative, and leading to a conclusion that the very brief experiment of the
Philippines with impeachment proceedings shows ample proof that decisions
on
impeachment proceedings are rendered on purely partisan and political
reasons, totally disregarding the merits of the allegations or the accusations
against the President. This is a defect that is inherent in impeachment
powers vested in the legislature. Experience shows that impeachment
power, which is
essentially a judicial function, once vested in the legislature, is almost always
unsatisfactory in realizing its vested objective which is protecting the
State. Therefore the process as it goes is impracticable. It is also

cumbersome and complicated and, to say the least, grossly inadequate in
terms of
exacting responsibility from the public officers to the Constitution and to the
State.
I might be trailblazing here, but I am seriously considering the idea of
transferring the powers of impeachment trial. after it has been initiated by
the
joint action of the legislative chamber to the judicial courts, the way it is
being adopted now in the countries of the United States and in Europe.
Is the Committees benediction on this matter forthcoming, or am I a lonely
voice on this matter?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, when we were reviewing the provisions
on impeachment, those same questions were asked in our discussions. The
Committee
decided that the presence of the impeachment provision by itself, even if it
has not been successful, would act even as a deterrent if liberalized. We
accepted the fact that the impeachment proceeding is primarily a political
act, and we are not sure that it did not serve its purpose, for example, the
last time it was used, even if it appeared that it failed. The events and the
sequence of decisions after that seem to indicate that the President at the
time really exerted all his efforts to defeat the impeachment proceeding.
This, by itself, showed that it had impact. Second. this subsequent calling of
snap elections may have been influenced to some extent by the fact that
there was an attempt at impeachment.
So, in terms of achieving its purpose, it being a political act, and calling the
attention of the people to certain actions that would make the incumbent
seek a fresh mandate from the people, keeping it in the Constitution would
still serve a purpose.
As far as judicial action is concerned, the resort to judicial action for certain
crimes, as the provision itself says, is still there. It does not
preclude the judicial process.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: I appreciate the explanation of the Committee Chairman. But
for purposes of conceptual clarity, we might as well underscore the fact that
impeachment. although it is an exercise of a political act. is essentially a
judicial function. The political component here would be necessary in
recognizing that an impeachment procedure, which is a judicial function,

covers not only political matters but even legal matters.
MR. MONSOD: We realize that there is a judicial function involved in the
impeachment process. But I think the questions we want to address
ourselves are:
Is the provision on impeachment still necessary? Does it serve a useful
purpose as far as the political processes are concerned?
MS. AQUINO: I may be launching a lonely crusade here. Even as I would
concede that the powers of impeachment might have to be vested in the
legislature, I
would conduct a massive overhaul of the procedures to make impeachment
procedure a viable option.
MR. MONSOD: We would be very happy to take a look at any suggestion that
would improve our Constitution.
MS. AQUINO: Do I take it to mean that I am effectively foreclosed in terms of
a conceptual redefinition of impeachment procedures when I would attempt
to
vest it in the judicial courts insofar as the presidency is concerned?
MR. MONSOD: Yes. Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe the Committee at this point
believes that an overhaul in that direction might not be appropriate. But we
would be amenable to other suggestions in order to make it a more effective
deterrent.
MS. AQUINO: My only concern is that experience has shown that
impeachment procedures as they are now stated in the draft would be
nothing more pardon the
Freudian slip but there is no better term for this than a glorified act of
political masturbation. There should be a conscious and deliberate attempt
to
make this a feasible and viable option in the exercise of a concern to protect
the State against erring officers for malfeasance or misfeasance.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. We understand the Commissioners
appreciation of the problem. What we are saying is that perhaps our
perception of
its deterrent effect even in cases where it seems to have failed may be
different.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I propound an inquiry to Commissioner Aquino?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, gladly.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner need not overhaul the procedure. But it
seems to me that she is suggesting some sort of judicial review; am I right?
MS. AQUINO: No, what I am suggesting is to transfer the impeachment power
after the impeachment articles have been initiated and formulated by the
joint
action of the legislative chambers to the judicial courts.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Aquino yield to a question, too?
MS. AQUINO: Gladly.
MR. OPLE: Commissioner Aquino must be aware that the main provision on
impeachment in the draft article under discussion was lifted virtually from
the two
previous Constitutions, actually almost a verbatim copy of Article VII of the
United States Constitution that was framed and ratified in 1787. May I
briefly read Article VII:
Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than the removal
from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or
profit under the United States, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be
liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according
to law.
It is almost unchanged since the American constitutional framers established
this impeachment rule in the Constitution of 1787.
But the reason I brought this up was to induce Commissioner Aquino to recall
a more recent event related to impeachment in the United States Congress
of an
American President, Richard Nixon, who was facing impeachment. As a
matter of fact, the charges had already been formulated in a committee of
the House of
Representatives and he was to be tried by the Senate in the full glare of
world television. Instead of submitting to impeachment proceedings, he
resigned,
and later on was granted amnesty by President Ford. The point is that
impeachment is a sword in the scabbard. It is as good as a sword drawn; it
certainly
caused the resignation of an American President because, in the words of

President Ford before he gave the amnesty to President Nixon, the
presidency of
the United States probably could not withstand the rigor and injury arising
from a public trial in the Senate by impeachment of the President of the
United
States.
Since this section is indubitably of American origin, I think we are justified in
recalling some American-examples in the contemporary period. I do not
want to share Commissioner Aquinos despair that this impeachment or trial
by the Senate, through the origination of charges in the House of
Representatives is equivalent to a constitutional decoration or tinsel. It is
actually a powerful check on the presidency. It may be a sword in the
scabbard but there are circumstances when a sword in the scabbard is as
good as a sword drawn.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What is the pleasure of Commissioner
Aquino?
MS. AQUINO: I appreciate Commissioner Oples setting the stimulus of the
discussion on this line. But there may be a variance of conceptual
appreciation
here.
Impeachment is not intended to punish the offender. Impeachment is a
method of national inquest to protect the State. It does not intend to
prosecute; it
is not intended for its retributory or restitutory effects. Rather, it is in the
nature of an exemplary act by which the State infuses the highest sense of
responsibility to public service.
In other words, when the Constitution provides that the intent of an
impeachment proceeding is not only to remove from office, it follows as a
necessary
concurrent effect the disqualification of that erring public officer from
positions of trust or responsibility. It may be true that it is a sword in the
scabbard but the sword in the scabbard can rust unless it is drawn.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair would like to understand the
present parliamentary situation. Is Commissioner Aquino proposing a specific
amendment?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): On what section and what is the nature
of the amendment?
MS. AQUINO: It will overhaul massively Section 3 in the sense that I am
contemplating the possibility of amending Section 3 to vest in the judicial
courts
the power of impeachment trials after the impeachment articles have been
formulated and initiated by the joint action of the legislative chambers. But
the
Committee has expressed reluctance to this position.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Precisely, the Chair would like to know
the reaction of the Committee on the proposed amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee explained its position that
we believe the present provision serves a very useful purpose, and we want
to
see it retained. Furthermore, if I get the drift of the arguments of
Commissioner Aquino, the overhaul would involve the introduction of the
judicial
branch of the government into the process in the case of the President.
Our position is that the President has been directly elected by the people.
Since this is a political act, the more appropriate judge of the President in
this matter should probably be the direct representatives of the people as
well, which are the Senate and the House.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am presently inclined to respect the
position of the Committee. However, without foreclosing the possibility of
introducing pertinent amendments on the basis of their position, may I make
two inquiries?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Commissioner may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: Am I in agreement with the Committee that impeachment
proceedings are essentially judicial in nature?
MR. ROMULO: No, we believe that they are political. Judicial aspects may
come in the procedures such as the forming of the articles, the actual trial
being
presided over by the Chief Justice, and so on. But we still believe that they
are essentially a political act rather than a judicial act.
MS. AQUINO: Precisely, I was very careful on my formulation of terms when I
said impeachment proceedings, not impeachment power. So, we are agreed
on the
premise that impeachment proceedings are essentially judicial in nature.
Does it follow, therefore, that when the legislative chamber sits to undertake
impeachment proceedings, it sits not as a legislative body but as a judicial
body; rather, it sits as a court of justice?
MR. ROMULO: In a way, they probably sit more like jurists, as finders of fact
and the law, I suppose. They combine those functions. We could say that
there
is an exercise of judicial power involved.
MS. AQUINO: On the basis of these shared premises, would the legislature
then, sitting to undertake impeachment proceedings, still be bound by the
rules of
legislative sessions? Specifically, if the legislature adjourns, are the Members
duty-bound to terminate or preterminate as the case may be the
impeachment proceedings if the supervening circumstance of adjournment
of the sessions come in?
MR. ROMULO: I think that would depend on the rules they would adopt.
Certainly, the Constitution does not settle that.
MS. AQUINO: Because I would proceed from settled jurisprudence that
impeachment proceedings are essentially judicial in nature, such that it
follows that
when the legislative chamber undertakes these proceedings it sits as a court
of justice and, therefore. it is not bound by the rules of legislative
sessions. It cannot adjourn. Assuming that the session is adjourned,
impeachment proceedings should not, in any way, be affected by the
adjournment of the
session.
MR. ROMULO: That is not precluded from our proposal. If the Commissioner
wants to make it explicit and to suggest amendments to that effect, I
suppose we
would not object. Our thinking is that if the Commissioners premise is that it
is like a court of justice. Maybe an adjournment of the hearing will
certainly not preclude it from continuing the proceedings on some other day.
In other words, it could not lose jurisdiction just because of adjournment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair, therefore, understands from
Commissioner Aquino that her proposed massive amendment is considered
withdrawn.
MS. AQUINO: Not yet, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Commissioner may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: On another point, if an impeachment proceeding has been filed
against the President, for example, and the President resigns before
judgment of
conviction has been rendered by the impeachment court or by the body, how
does it affect the impeachment proceeding? Will it be necessarily dropped?
MR. ROMULO: If we decide the purpose of impeachment to remove one from
office, then his resignation would render the case moot and academic.
However, as
the provision says, the criminal and civil aspects of it may continue in the
ordinary courts.
MS. AQUINO: I am not so much concerned about the civil and criminal
aspects as I am concerned with the necessary effect of a judgment of
conviction in an
impeachment proceeding. A judgment of conviction also means
disqualification from office; it does not only mean removal from office.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I see that point. It is my personal opinion that if he
resigns, that in itself would end the impeachment proceeding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair recognizes the Floor Leader.
MR. RAMA: There are several other Commissioners who would like to amend
the Article. May I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Just a minute. May we consider
Commissioner Aquinos proposed amendment withdrawn?
MS. AQUINO: No, Mr. Presiding Officer. I have to consult Commissioner
Guingona about it.
MR. GUINGONA: Precisely, Mr. Presiding Officer, I was going to ask
Commissioner Aquino a couple of questions, if I may, in connection with her
proposal.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Is the Commissioners perception of an impeachment
proceeding an exclusively political device or proceeding or an essentially
political
proceeding? If it is an essentially political proceeding, then there would be no
objection to exceptions where courts may be allowed to be given the power
to adjudicate on this particular proceeding. On the other hand, if it is
exclusive because the President is elected by the people. the judgment
about the
Presidents tenure or term of office should be judged by the representatives
of the people, if the courts are not empowered to decide cases or questions
relating to elections, and terms and qualifications of the President.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer. may I briefly reply? It is my humble
submission that an impeachment proceeding and an impeachment power
are essentially
political acts. But because of the nature of the judgment of conviction in an
impeachment proceeding, it requires the process of adjudication. If we
divorce ourselves from the conceptual definition of impeachment and focus
on the practicality of impeachment proceedings, then it becomes necessary
for us
to reassess the procedure. I am not so much concerned in the conceptual
purity of impeachment as I am concerned in it being a feasible and viable
alternative in the exercise of protection of the State.
MR. GUINGONA.: Last question. Mr. Presiding Officer.
Mention was made here about the impeachment proceeding we are adopting
as being copied from the United States. Is the honorable Commissioner
aware that in
other countries the legislature is given the power to initiate and the courts
are vested with the power to adjudicate an impeachment proceeding? I
would
like to cite, among others, the following countries: United Arab Republic,
Zambia, the Republic of France, Burundi, Cameroon, the Republic of Congo,
Ethiopia, Cyprus, Gabon, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Laos, and others.
MS. AQUINO: I am not aware of that, Mr. Presiding Officer. But I am thankful
for that citation because it reinforces my position.
MR. RAMA.: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner. Regalado be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Still on the same proposed

amendment?
MR. RAMA: On impeachment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): We have to dispose of the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Aquino which was not accepted by the
Committee.
Does Commissioner Aquino insist on a vote if she will not withdraw it?
MR. RAMA: There was no amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: There are no specific amendments yet and on the prompting of
the kibitzers around me I have been pressured not to withdraw it. A
possibility is
that we can intermarry this proposal with the procedural amendments of
Commissioner Davide and Commissioner Maambong.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair recognizes the Floor Leader.
MR. RAMA.: I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Before we leave that matter of Section 3 on impeachment. I suppose
Commissioner Aquino could submit her proposed amendment which,
together with my
amendment and that of Commissioners Maambong and Davide, had been
deferred for consideration.
My proposed amendments would, therefore, leave only Sections 2, 9 and 12.
Without prejudice to my talking, let us go to the consideration of the
amendment
on Section 3.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Regalado is given five
minutes.
MR. REGALADO: I propose to add in Section 2 as a last sentence thereof as
already amended the following: ALL OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES MAY BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS PROVIDED BY LAW BUT NOT BY IMPEACHMENT.
The reason for the amendment is this: While Section 2 enumerates the
impeachable officers,
there is nothing that will prevent the legislature as it stands now from
providing also that other officers not enumerated therein shall also be
removable
only by impeachment, and that has already happened.
Under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1606. the Sandiganbayan Decree, justices of the
Sandiganbayan may be removed only by impeachment. unlike their
counterparts in
the then Court of Appeals. They are, therefore, a privileged class on the level
of the Supreme Court. In the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and
Agencies, there are many commissions which are sought to be
constitutionalized if I may use the phrase and the end result would be
that if they are
constitutional commissions, the commissioners there could also be removed
only by impeachment. What is there to prevent the Congress later
because of the
lack of this sentence that I am seeking to add from providing that officials
of certain offices, although nonconstitutional, cannot also be removed
except by impeachment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : What does the Committee say on the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Regalado?
MR. MONSOD: May we ask Commissioner Regalado a few questions?
Does this mean that with this provision, the other officers in the case of the
Sandiganbayan would not be removable by impeachment?
MR. REGALADO: For the present and during the interim and until the new
Congress amends P.D. No. 1606, that provision still stands. But the proposed
amendment will not prevent the legislature from subsequently repealing or
amending that portion of the law. Also, it will prevent the legislature from
providing for favored public officials as not removable except by
impeachment.
That is the purpose of this proposal.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee is willing to accept the
amendment of Commissioner Regalado.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas). The proposed amendment of
Commissioner Regalado has been accepted by the Committee.
MR. REGALADO: After the last sentence in Section 2, the amendment will
read: ALL OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES MAY BE REMOVED FROM
OFFICE AS PROVIDED
BY LAW BUT NOT BY IMPEACHMENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : Precisely, that has been accepted by
the Committee.
MR. REGALADO: They wanted me to read before we vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : All right.
approved.
MR. REGALADO: On Section 9, Mr. Presiding Officer, regarding the
Ombudsman and his deputies serving for a term of seven years without
reappointment. I
propose to add a sentence to read as follows: THEY SHALL NOT BE
QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR ANY OFFICE IN THE ELECTION IMMEDIATELY
SUCCEEDING THE END OF THEIR
TERM OR RESIGNATION FROM OFFICE.
May I explain the reason, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. REGALADO: The reason is that the Ombudsman as now visualized by us
will be a person who will have some powers, although as they say he is
toothless.
Nevertheless, he is publicly visible and highly capable of projecting himself
into the public limelight; whether he likes it or not, he will have to do so.
We would like to avoid the possibility that an Ombudsman may use his
position as a springboard for the coming elections. Or if he is caught in
midstream in
his term and the elections are coming up, he may resign and having already
the aura of public acceptance, he may immediately go into politics. In other
words, he should not use his position as a springboard for political purposes
but we are not going to deprive the electorate completely of such a man if he
is really capable and competent. All I am trying to introduce here is that
there be an interval before he can run in the next election.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Will the proponent accept some amendments?
MR. REGALADO: May I hear the proposed amendment?

MR. DAVIDE: The amendment would be on the election immediately following
their cessation from office. It may be by removal; it may be by a declaration
of
incapacity; it may be by resignation. So, the amendment reads THEIR
CESSATION FROM OFFICE.
MR . REGALADO: Under that concept, the proposed amendment to my
amendment is willingly accepted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): For clarification, will Commissioner
Regalado read his proposed amendment taking into account the amendment
suggested
by Commissioner Davide?
MR. REGALADO: The amendment, as amended, will now read: THEY SHALL
NOT BE QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR ANY OFFICE IN THE ELECTION IMMEDIATELY
SUCCEEDING THEIR
CESSATION FROM OFFICE. In other words, the amendment makes the
provision all-embracing.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Just one clarificatory question. Does the Gentleman realize
that if that is three years, that was the consensus of this Assembly, of this
Commission?
MR. REGALADO: Three years.
MR. MONSOD: With that clarification, the Committee is willing to accept the
proposed amendment.
MR. REGALADO: As amended further by Commissioner Davide.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: May I amend the amendment? Will the proponent accept an
amendment to his amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does Commissioner Regalado
say?
MR. REGALADO: The Committee has already accepted the amendment. Is the
Committee willing to defer acceptance in the meantime to give
Commissioner Foz an
opportunity to introduce a proposed amendment to the amendment, as
amended?
MR. MONSOD: May we hear the proposed amendment to the amendment?
MR. FOZ: The amendment is to the effect that instead of disqualifying them
in just the immediately succeeding election, I would amend it to provide IN
THE
NEXT TWO SUCCEEDING ELECTIONS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF HIS TERM.
May I explain my amendment, if the Chair will permit me?
MR. FOZ: The office of the Ombudsman is a very visual office. Precisely, the
functions, powers and duties of the Ombudsman make it a natural subject of
a
lot of publicity. As a matter of fact, one of its functions is to publicize, when
circumstances so warrant, matters covered by its investigation. We
expect, therefore, a very active Ombudsman who will most probably be in
the glare of publicity almost everyday. If he does his job well, he will be
popular. In other words, he may use his office as a launching pad for his
political ambitions.
In order to preclude a politicking Ombudsman, we should so provide that
aside from prohibiting him from resigning his office and then running for
public
office within the term for which he was appointed and for the succeeding
election, we should lengthen the period during which he should be prohibited
from
running for public office precisely to dissuade him from harboring political
ambitions during the time he will be discharging the functions of his office.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we regret we cannot accept the
amendment. The reasons given by Commissioner Foz were the same reasons
given by
Commissioner Regalado.
If we extend it to two elections. the prohibition could reach nine years. We
feel that probably that is not really the intention of the original proponent.
We just want to deter politicking; on the other hand, nine years may be a
little too long for a really good man who might be able to serve the people.
MR. FOZ: May we respond to the statement?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Foz has two minutes.
MR. FOZ: Under the provisions we have approved regarding the term of office
of Members of the Congress, we have provided for a term of office of only
three
years for Members of the Lower House. So, we have provided that every
three years there shall be an election. Therefore, after six years, it is possible
for a former Ombudsman to run for public office. It is not really nine years
straight.
MR. MONSOD: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, if the Ombudsman ceases from office
shortly after one election, then he has to wait almost nine years before he
can
run.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Foz insist on a vote?
MR. REGALADO: My position, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that providing for the
next succeeding election is a happy compromise because the country may
also
need the services of such an Ombudsman who has proved true to his worth.
If we provide for two successive elections in the case of animals, they
hibernate; in the case of fish, they estivate the Ombudsman might
politically vegetate. That is why if the prohibition is only for the immediately
succeeding election, this offers a happy compromise.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The matter has been sufficiently
discussed.
Will Commissioner Foz insist on a vote?
MR. FOZ: I withdraw my amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The proposed amendment of
Commissioner Foz has been withdrawn.
MR. REGALADO: Having been accepted by the Committee, was the
amendment submitted to a vote or was there an objection?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : Will Commissioner Regalado restate
his proposed amendment?
MR. REGALADO: The additional sentence on Section 9 will be: THEY SHALL
NOT BE QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR ANY OFFICE IN THE ELECTION IMMEDIATELY
SUCCEEDING THEIR
CESSATION FROM OFFICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. REGALADO: One more proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Section 12 (1) on page 5, lines 1 to 3, reads: any act or duty required of him
by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the
performance of duties. I propose to add a comma (,) and the phrase
ESPECIALLY ANY VIOLATION OF CIVIL, POLITICAL, NATURAL OR HUMAN
RIGHTS. May I explain,
Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. REGALADO: In the subcommittee on additional Constitutional
Commissions and Agencies, there is a pending resolution to create a
Constitutional
Commission on Human Rights. We do not know what will be the fate of that
resolution but we are nevertheless concerned about human rights. Therefore,
this
addition I am proposing would be a sort of a backup measure in the event
that that proposed Constitutional Commission on Human Rights is not
approved. At
least there is an expression of concern for the protection of civil, political,
natural or human rights this time through the graces of the Ombudsman.
That
is the only purpose for the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I interpose my objection to the proposed amendment?
If we expand the powers of the Ombudsman, then we will be giving the body
too much
powers. We will be expanding it and making it a superbody. I think the
Commission on Human Rights should be the appropriate body to conduct
investigations
on human rights violations. These are serious matters, matters like
salvaging, tortures, hamletting. This cannot be the duty of the Ombudsman
considering
its multifarious duties. I think we should limit the Ombudsman to
investigation of cases involving graft and corruption, how to make the
government
efficient, to avoid waste, graft and corruption, and mismanagement.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a point of information on the matter.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is the Gentlemans question addressed
to Commissioner Regalado?
MR. FOZ: Yes, and to the body.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Regalado answer
the point of clarification?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: Actually, we would like to inform the body that in the Committee on
Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, there is a consensus on the
establishment of a Commission on Human Rights which would have
jurisdiction over the matters which are now being proposed by the proponent
of the amendment
regarding the function of the Ombudsman. So, I think we should not include
such a function under the office of the Ombudsman because that is precisely
the
main function of the proposed Commission on Human Rights, which the
Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies is about to take up
in a meeting.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I respond to that?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Gentleman is given two minutes.
MR. REGALADO: I specifically prefaced my statement by saying that this
proposed additional phrase is only a backup measure in the event that the
proposed
Constitutional Commission on Human Rights is not approved. Commissioner
Foz says there is a consensus. I am not aware how many voted for or against
the
same. Secondly, I said that I do not know what would be the fate of that
proposed Constitutional Commission on Human Rights. I think there are only
a few
members in the Committee that we cannot even reach a unanimous
decision. If Commissioner Foz can assure me with certainty that that
proposed Constitutional
Commission on Human Rights will be approved by the entire membership of
the plenum, I will withdraw my amendment. Can he assure me now that that
is assured
of approval?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Foz respond?
MR. FOZ: First of all, I would like to report that 7 out of 13 members have
voted to establish such a commission, of course, with a lot of reservations as
to functions and powers. With that as basis, I think we can more or less be
assured of the possibility of having the same body be reported out in a
committee report, unless the members change their minds, particularly
those who voted for its establishment.
If we can be assured that the approval of such an amendment now being
proposed by Commissioner Regalado will not be a stumbling block to the
Committee
acting and reporting out in a committee report a proposal to establish a
Commission on Human Rights, then we will have no objection to such a
proposal.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair believes the matter has been
sufficiently discussed. What is the reaction of the Committee to the proposed
amendment?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we believe that the intent of the
proponent in making the amendment is very clear. He would like to insert
this phrase
so that if, for any reason, a Commission on Human Rights is not approved,
then there is a corresponding phrase here that the Ombudsman can act on.
However,
if the proponent is willing, we are prepared to accept the proposed
amendment with the understanding that should the Commission on Human
Rights be
established under this Constitution, the phrase that would be redundant be
removed.
MR. REGALADO: That is wholeheartedly agreed upon, not by reason of literal
redundancy but substantially because it would be academic.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to propose some amendments.
Instead of ESPECIALLY, we use only the word INCLUDING and we should

delete the word NATURAL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does Commissioner Regalado
say?
MR. REGALADO: I have no objection to the use of the word INCLUDING but
the jus naturale has not always been translated into statutory rights or
political
rights or civil rights. That is also a catch-all phrase for the natural rights of a
person.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee has accepted the
proposal. May we respond to the proposed modification of Commissioner
Davide?
MR. MONSOD: We would like to reconsider with respect to that point. We
agree that the word NATURAL should be removed.
MR. REGALADO: If it is understood and there is such an assurance that all the
rights considered under the jus naturale are covered by statutory provisions
on civil or political rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I will
agree.
MR. MONSOD: We will accept that interpretation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved, subject to the reservation.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized to present an
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is a very simple amendment and this has
been cleared with the Committee last week.
On page 6, line 2, the amendment is to substitute the word CONTROLLING
for substantial. Last week, we asked the Committee for the meaning of the
word
substantial and Commissioner Nolledo answered that under the National

Internal Revenue Code, substantial interest means at least 20 percent. So,
I took
up with him the matter of having this amended or changed to the word
CONTROLLING. As a matter of fact, it was he who suggested the word
CONTROLLING.
MR. MONSOD: The Committee has already accepted that amendment and we
are reiterating it.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I have some proposed amendments on Section 3 (5).
MR. DAVIDE: This is without prejudice to whatever amendments may be
accepted by the Committee when the Aquino amendments shall be taken up.
It would
consist in adding a new sentence on line 20. Before the phrase No person
shall be convicted, insert the following: IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE
PRESIDENT OF
THE SENATE SHALL PRESIDE.
MR. MONSOD: Is it not understood that when the President of the Philippines
is on trial, it is the only time when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
will preside? Is it necessary to say that the Senate President shall preside
during all other times?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I precisely presented that because we had
a distinction when it comes to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But
with that clarification, that in all other cases it would be the President of the
Senate who will preside, I withdraw the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The amendment has been withdrawn.
MR. DAVIDE: May I propose another amendment. On page 3, line 21, after
thereafter, delete without any confirmation and insert a period (.) then
add a
new sentence to read: SUCH APPOINTMENTS SHALL REQUIRE NO
CONFIRMATION.
This is just to have a symmetry with the same provision in the Article on the
Judiciary.
MR MONSOD: We accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 1, page 4, after not, insert the following: HOLD ANY
OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, OR. On line 2, after profession, add the
following: OR IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ANY BUSINESS WHICH IN ANY WAY
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE FUNCTIONS OF THEIR OFFICE, OR BE FINANCIALLY
INTERESTED, DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY, IN ANY CONTRACT WITH, OR IN ANY FRANCHISE OR
PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS,
AGENCIES OR INSTRUMENTALITIES,
INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS OR
THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Davide accept an amendment to his
amendment to his which will embody the same concept?
MR. DAVIDE: May we hear the proposed amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is obvious that Commissioner Davide restated the
disabilities against members of a constitutional commission as provided for
in
Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer, because we have raised
the position of the Ombudsman to that of a member of a constitutional
commission. Therefore, all the disqualifications and prohibitions attaching to
a member of the commission must also similarly attach to the Ombudsman.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is why to make the sentence shorter, my proposed
amendment would be to simply state that they shall be subject to the same
disabilities as provided for in Article XII, Section 3 of this Constitution. Then
delete the words on lines 1 and 2, page 4.
MR. DAVIDE: I would have no objection to that; it would embody the full idea.
But I wonder if we must use disabilities.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think that is the term which we used.
MR. DAVIDE: Disqualifications, I guess, would be a much better word. BE
SUBJECT TO THE SAME DISQUALIFICATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS.
MR. DE LOS REYES: They shall BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
DISQUALIFICATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE XII,
SECTION 3 OF THIS CONSTITUTION.
Then delete lines 1 and 2 of page 4. Is that all right with the Commissioner?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: We accept the proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a proposal on Section 9 but I would like to get first the
position of the Committee. Does not the Committee also contemplate a
staggered
term for those first appointed?
MR. MONSOD: We did not contemplate that because unlike in the other
constitutional commissions, the Ombudsman is the only one who is a
constitutional
officer; the others are not.
MR. DAVIDE: In that particular case then, I will not insist on an amendment to
Section 9. But on Section 11, page 4, line 15, I would like to propose an
amendment. It is just an insertion between the words shall and act of the
following: AT NO EXPENSE TO AN AGGRIEVED PARTY. Then add a comma (,).
MR. MONSOD: We regret that we prefer not to accept the amendment

because we believe that those are properly within the rules and regulations
of the office
of the Ombudsman and we do not want to make a constitutional provision
out of fees. Perhaps we can leave that to the Ombudsmans office.
MR. DAVIDE: With that assurance. I withdraw my amendment.
On lines 17 to 19, I would like to propose the following amendments at the
same time because they are interlinked with one another. On line 17, after
the
comma (,) following government, add OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY OR
INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF. On line 18, before corporations, insert OR
CONTROLLED, and
then delete the word agencies at the end. On line 19, delete the words or
instrumentalities.
So, the entire three lines will now read as follows: public officials or
employees of the government, OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY OR
INSTRUMENTALITY
THEREOF, including government-owned OR CONTROLLED corporations, and
shall notify . . .
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we accept the amendments. This is
merely a realignment with other provisions in the other articles.
Chair hears none; the proposed amendments are approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On Section 12, line 27, after the comma (,) following
government, insert the following: OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY, OR
INSTRUMENTALITY
THEREOF. On line 28, insert the words OR CONTROLLED before corporation,
then delete institution and substitute it with THEIR SUBSIDIARIES. So, lines
27
and 28 will read: government OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY, OR
INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF as well as of government-owned OR
CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES, . . .
MR. ROMULO: Per the reservation we made before, subsidiaries of
government corporations with original charters are not covered.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it should be government-owned OR CONTROLLED

CORPORATIONS WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.
MR. ROMULO: We had agreed before that subsidiaries will not be covered.
MR. DAVIDE: So, I am willing to strike out AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.
MR. ROMULO: We accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: On page 5, line 9, change the capital letter T of the word To
to a small letter t. Before the word To, insert the following: IN ANY
APPROPRIATE CASE AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW. On line 12, between disbursement and of, insert OR
USE; and after funds,
add OR PROPERTIES. So, subparagraph (3) will now read as follows: IN ANY
APPROPRIATE CASE AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW to
direct the officer concerned to furnish it with copies of documents relating to
contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the
disbursement OR USE of public funds OR PROPERTIES . . .
MR. MONSOD: The Committee accepts the amendments.
Chair hears none; the proposed amendments are approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On the same page, between lines 20 and 21, I seek to insert two
new phrases. The first is: TO PROMULGATE ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE. The
second had
already been adopted by a previous amendment.
MR. ROMULO: Can it not be combined with Subsection 6?
MR. DAVIDE: I would have no objection to combining it with subparagraph (6)
but I really want this particular power to be vested. So, it can be placed in
subparagraph (6). But in subparagraph (6), I propose to insert OTHER
between such and powers on line 21.
As recommended by the Committee, the proposed powers should be
dovetailed with subparagraph (6) on line 21. So, subparagraph (6), as
amended, will read as
follows: TO PROMULGATE ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE AND to exercise such
OTHER powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by

law.
MR. MONSOD: The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Finally, on page 6 this is the last after the amendment of
Commissioner Treas yesterday, I would like to add a comma (,) after the
word
Congress that was adopted and the following phrase: ANY MEMBER OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, THE JUDICIARY OR THE OMBUDSMAN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): How shall the whole section read?
MR. DAVIDE: The whole section, together with the Treas and de Castro
amendments, will now read as follows: No loan, guaranty or other form of
financial
accommodation for any business purpose may be granted, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY by any government-owned or controlled bank or financial
institution to THE
PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBER OF THE CABINET, MEMBER OF
CONGRESS, ANY MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, THE
JUDICIARY OR THE OMBUDSMAN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: In connection with that proposed amendment which would include
the members of the constitutional commissions, I think we should not place
the
members of the constitutional commissions which include the
Ombudsman or the Tanodbayan on the same level as members of the
Cabinet or Members of
Congress. In the last two categories, we can safely say that they belong to
political offices.
In the case of members of constitutional commissions, precisely we have
included provisions in the Article on the three commissions to make or
transform
them into independent nonpartisan, nonpolitical officials. There is no reason,
therefore, for lumping them together with the politicians on the same level
as to extend a prohibition on the grant of loans from government financial
institutions to members of constitutional commissions.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be allowed to react?

MR. DAVIDE: Precisely, we have to do this because we have enshrined the
commissions as independent bodies, and the Ombudsman as another body
similar in
rank to the different constitutional commissions. The loans or
accommodations or credits to be obtained here are for a business purpose.
They can use their
pressure because they are beyond politics. More pressure can even be
exerted by them especially by the Ombudsman because the Ombudsman is
the superbody.
So, the danger of a political pressure is even worse because it is not just a
political but a real clout of an enshrined superbody. Insofar as a politician
is concerned, he would be concerned with the public because he is elected
by the people. But members of the constitutional commissions and the
Ombudsman
are not elected by the people; they have no responsibility to the people in
effect. There is more reason, therefore, that they be prevented to use undue
influence in the matter of obtaining loans for business purposes. I hope
Commissioner Foz would realize the significance of the distinction because
the
distinction on the contrary would necessitate the imposition of the
prohibition.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
I would oppose the inclusion of judicial officials unless we categorize them
into those of the Supreme Court, intermediate appellate courts, et cetera.
The
poor municipal trial court judge receives a very low salary and he, in fact,
borrows money from banks in order to do some business, say, poultry,
piggery
or some other projects. If the whole judiciary is included in toto, we should
consider the municipal trial court judge who received a very low salary.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are trying to prevent an evil. If a judge
is allowed to borrow money for business purposes, and that particular bank
or financial institution may have a case in his sala, therefore, his judgment in
a given case will be affected. Besides, the members of the judiciary will
be adequately compensated and this is related only to loans for business

purposes.
MR. DE CASTRO: That will be quite remote in the case of a municipal trial
judge because his jurisdiction is very limited.
MR. DAVIDE: But the bank will be located in the municipality where he is
sitting.
MR. DE CASTRO: I have registered my objection, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): It is all right. What is the action of the
Committee with regard to the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Davide?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, yesterday this issue of who is going to be
included or excluded from the enumeration was discussed. I believe
Commissioners de los Reyes and Rodrigo participated in this discussion, and
it seems to us that the sense of the body last Saturday was to limit the
enumeration to those included in the amendments of Commissioners Treas
and Foz. We would like, therefore, to ask the body to vote on whether or not
the
prohibition should extend to the constitutional commissions, the judiciary, or
the Ombudsman.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Davide read his
proposed amendments so that we can put these to a vote?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, would the proponent wish to break down
the amendments?
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to break them down.
First, members of the Constitutional Commissions, as I said, would be in a
better position to exert undue influence.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will the proponent please read the
amendment because the Members may not be able to follow?
MR. DAVIDE: I propose to add the following phrase after the Treas
amendment on the constitutional commissions: MEMBER OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): As many as are in favor of the

amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
hand.)
The results show 17 votes in favor and 5 votes against; the proposed
MR. DAVIDE: The next would be the members of the judiciary.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a point of clarification. Is the Ombudsman
covered by the phrase MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS?
MR. DAVIDE: No, that would be the third matter to be voted upon.
MR. MONSOD: That is right. We are taking this one at a time and the
Ombudsman is last. We are talking about the judiciary which, I understand,
would
include all members down to the municipal trial court.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): We shall now vote on the second
amendment of Commissioner Davide.
As many as are in favor of including the judiciary in the proposed
hand.)
MR. DAVIDE: And finally, I propose to add the phrase: OR THE
OMBUDSMAN.
VOTING
proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 35 votes in favor and no vote against; the proposed
MR. FOZ: Point of clarification. Does the prohibition cover members of the
family of those mentioned in the provisions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will the Committee please answer the
inquiry?
MR. MONSOD: The immediate family would be included because of the words
directly or indirectly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: What about relatives within the third degree of affinity or
consanguinity?
MR. MONSOD: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, they are not included. I think we are
looking at beneficial interest given directly or indirectly. So they would not
be included, unless it can be proven that they are dummies.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, just for clarification.
MR. GUINGONA: When we voted with regard to the constitutional
commissions, we, of course, referred to the Chairman and the members.
What about in the case
of the Ombudsman, do we refer to the Ombudsman, or the Ombudsman and
his deputy?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we refer only to the Ombudsman
because only he is a constitutional officer, unlike in the case of the
constitutional
commissions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I request that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, my first amendment is an amendment
by addition. After Section 14 on page 6, I propose to add a new section that
will
give fiscal autonomy to the Ombudsman.
Mr. Presiding Officer, we gave fiscal autonomy to the constitutional
commissions and to the judiciary in order to give independence to these
bodies and,
secondly, to free them from political pressures. I believe that the
Ombudsman, being the champion and protector of the peoples cause,
should also be given
this fiscal autonomy. Therefore, this proposed section will read: THE
TANODBAYAN OR THE OMBUDSMAN SHALL ENJOY FISCAL AUTONOMY. THE
APPROVED ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OMBUDSMAN SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY AND
REGULARLY RELEASED.
This proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer, has the fatherly support of Commissioner
Nolledo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The new section would therefore be
Section 15?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: We accept it, Mr. Presiding Officer, but can we align it with the
similar provision on the constitutional commissions?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, I copied verbatim the provisions on the constitutional
commissions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I proceed with my next
amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Please proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: My amendment is with respect to Section 10, lines 9 to 11
which reads: A Deputy of the Ombudsman shall have the rank of a
Commissioner of a
Constitutional Commission. The term Constitutional Commission is quite
vague as it may refer to the Constitutional Commission of 1986, this
Constitutional Commission.
Mr. Presiding Officer, instead of capitalizing the letters C and C in the

words Constitutional Commission, I propose to change the capital C to a
small c so that the amended phrase will read: Commissioner of a
constitutional commission.
Will the Committee, with its fatherly support, accommodate my amendment?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe this provision was amended
yesterday by Commissioner de los Reyes but the intent of the proponent now
is to
clarify.
MR. SARMIENTO: Just to clarify.
MR. MONSOD: We accept it, Mr. Presiding Officer, if that is the purpose.
MR. SARMIENTO: My third amendment is with respect to Section 12 (5) which
reads: To publicize, when circumstances so warrant . . . To me, the word
circumstances is vague so may I suggest that instead of circumstances,
we say when PUBLIC INTEREST so warrant.
Will the Committee accommodate my proposed amendment?
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we used when circumstances so
warrant rather than PUBLIC INTEREST because we did not want to find the
Ombudsman too
strict, thus opening up the possibility of libel. Commissioner Ople also has, I
believe, a suggested amendment for this section.
MR. SARMIENTO: So with that explanation, I with draw my amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The proposed amendment is
considered withdrawn.
MR. SARMIENTO: This is my last proposed amendment. We have approved
the system of initiative and referendum as the reserve powers of the
sovereign people.
There is still one reserve power which we have not approved. I am referring
to the system of recall. These three systems go hand in hand as a tribute to
peoples power. I humbly submit that the system of recall makes our public
officials accountable to the people. It is a mode of terminating the positions

of our elective officials, in other countries, even appointive officials.
May I humbly propose to include in this same section a provision that would
read: THE LAW SHALL PROVIDE FOR A SYSTEM OF RECALL OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS. I
understand that there is a similar provision appearing in the Article on Local
Governments. But I humbly submit that it should have a place; it should be
transferred to this Article on Accountability of Public Officers, not in the
Article on Local Governments because recall is a system of making our public
officers accountable to the people.
MR. MONSOD: Is it the intention of the Gentleman to subject the
constitutional officers mentioned in this section to recall?
MR. SARMIENTO: Only the public officers, excluding the President, the VicePresident and the members of the constitutional commissions.
MR. MONSOD: Would be excluded?
MR. SARMIENTO: They would be excluded. So, only the public officials, the
local officials are the ones covered by this system of recall.
MR. MONSOD: Would the provision apply only to elective officials other than
those?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes. Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Excluding Congressmen?
MR. SARMIENTO: Excluding Congressmen
MR. MONSOD: Then only the local government officials are left, so perhaps,
the appropriate place for that should really be the Article on Local
Governments.
MR. SARMIENTO: What if we include the Congressmen?
MR. MONSOD: We believe that the elective officials Congressmen and
Senators are really subject to accountability to the people. But if the
Gentleman
will recall, the Congressmen, for example, have only three-year terms, and
they do not hold executive positions, unlike local government officials. They
are legislators. When the Committee met on this, we thought that the
Senators and the Congressmen should not really be subjected to recall. Since
the other
officers holding executive positions like the President are already subject to
impeachment, then the Local Government Code or the Article on Local
Governments should be the more appropriate place for a system of recall.
We regret that we cannot accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I hear a brief explanation from the Chairman of the
Committee on Local Governments?
MR. NOLLEDO: I can assure the Gentleman that I will accept any amendment
to that effect when we report our provisions on local government later.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you for the explanation and assurance.
Then I am withdrawing my amendment.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request that Commissioner Rigos
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, my proposed amendments have already
been presented by the previous speakers; so, I will just proceed with two
very minor
suggestions.
On page 2, Section 3 (5), line 16, I propose to insert the words CASES OF
between the words try all and impeachment, so that the sentence will
read:
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all CASES OF impeachment.
MR. MONSOD: We accept. Mr. Presiding Officer.
REV. RIGOS: On page 4. line 2 of Section 8, I propose to insert the word
OTHER between any and profession.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: The amendment is accepted, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request Commissioner Guingona
to be recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
At the outset, may I say that my proposed amendment would, in my opinion,
have meaning only if two other proposed amendments could go with the
same.
My first proposed amendment is to delete the entire Section 5 on the office
of the Special Prosecutor. The supplementary amendments I shall propose
later
would either be in this Article on Accountability of Public Officers or in the
Article on Transitory Provisions, provided that the incumbent Tanodbayan
would serve as the Ombudsman or the Tanodbayan.
And thirdly, I propose that as a last resort in extraordinary cases, the
Ombudsman be given prosecutory power.
With respect to the first amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer, may I say that I
question the need to provide for an office of a Special Prosecutor under the
Office of the President, but which could serve as a prosecutory arm of other
offices of the government when. in fact, all of the other prosecutors are
supposed to be under the Ministry of Justice. This situation could bring about
either conflicts or duplication of work.
I question the need of providing for a special prosecutor whose functions and
powers, as mentioned by Commissioner Rodrigo, have been emasculated to
the
point of almost relative impotence.
I question the allegation that there are many cases of graft and corruption,
First, because this statement has been made as a general statement without
any
fact, without any statistics or figures. Granting arguendo that there are a lot
of cases of graft and corruption, I respectfully submit, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that considering our administration now under President Aquino
the officials serving in this administration and the provisions which have
been
carefully drafted by the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers which

are intended to make public officials serve the people with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and act with justice and lead
modest lives, I predict that within a generation, the so-called many cases
of graft and corruption would be considerably reduced.
I do not see the point of putting in a constitution an office which, after a
generation or after a century, would be a useless appendage. If we really
have
a lot of graft and corruption cases, and this is perceived by the people, I am
sure that the legislature will provide for the necessary legislation to
address this problem. But in justice to the present Tanodbayan, the
Tanodbayan should not be deprived of an office, and should now therefore be
considered
as the Ombudsman. I see the point mentioned yesterday at the public
hearing by the Honorable Colayco that the main function of the Ombudsman
is public
relations, matter of persuasion. I think that should still be his principal
function. He should still try to persuade; he should still try to make the
directions enumerated here. But there are cases when he will meet officials
who will simply refuse to cooperate. In those very rare cases, I think he
should be given some powers, some prosecutory powers, some teeth, but
teeth enough to be able to make his presence felt. I would suggest later on,
Mr.
Presiding Officer, that we add another function for the Ombudsman, that in
case of failure of justice as defined by law, and as a last resort in
extraordinary cases, the Ombudsman can file and prosecute the
corresponding criminal, civil or administrative case before the proper court or
body.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): May we take the proposed
amendments of Commissioner Guingona one by one?
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I raise a parliamentary question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: If we will take a look at the records since Saturday and today,
we will note that the points raised by Commissioner Guingona have all been
raised, voted on, and discussed. If his proposal now is a motion for
reconsideration, then perhaps we should take that up first.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does Commissioner Guingona
say?
MR. GUINGONA: I am not aware that there was a motion acted upon to delete
this particular section. But if there was and if I would be allowed, I would like
to move for reconsideration, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the first motion made last Saturday
afternoon was precisely to delete the office of the Ombudsman because it
did not
have prosecutory functions, the same reasons now being used by
Commissioner Guingona. Therefore, would the Commissioner like to move for
reconsideration of
all of these points that have been discussed several times and debated in
this Commission?
MR. GUINGONA: May I reply by saying, as I said at the outset, that, this
particular proposal of mine is linked with other proposals. And even if this
proposal was made yesterday, I do not think that the same has been
considered in the light of what I have said that we would be giving the
Ombudsman
prosecutory power and the Tanodbayan would now serve as the
Ombudsman, as provided in this Constitution.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: May we take up the matter one by one? Since there was
already a resolution of the point raised last Saturday regarding the deletion
of Section
5, and since the first desire of Commissioner Guingona is for the same, I
guess the first thing that we should decide is whether or not we shall allow
this
motion for reconsideration. If this body decides in favor of the motion for
reconsideration, then we will vote on whether or not Section 5 will be
deleted.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, I agree, Mr. Presiding Officer, but may I add that I am
making this proposal with the intention of transferring the prosecutory power
of
the former Tanodbayan to the present Ombudsman. It is a matter which was
not considered in the previous deliberation, if my memory serves me right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair will make a ruling. Whatever
is the purpose of the present motion of the Gentleman partakes the nature of
a
reconsideration.
The Chair, therefore, asks the body to vote. Is there any objection?
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we vote, there is a prejudicial
question because it has not yet been shown that the Gentleman voted with
the
majority when we voted with respect to this particular provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair would like to inquire how
Commissioner Guingona voted.
MR. GUINGONA: There were so many votings held that I do not recall, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Floor Leader raises a point of order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, what is the point of order?
MR. BENGZON: The point of order is that, as indicated by Commissioner
Jamir, it has to be shown first that the proponent voted with the majority and
since
he could not indicate whether or not he voted with the majority, then I regret
to say that he is out of order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Since Commissioner Guingona cannot
tell us definitely how he voted, much to the regret of the Chair, it must rule
that
Commissioner Guingona is out of order.
MR. RODRIGO: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding Officer. I was the one who
moved for the deletion of all the provisions creating the Ombudsman, from
Section 6 down. But the motion of Commissioner Guingona is not to delete
Section 6 but to delete Section 5 so, it is a different motion altogether. We
have not yet voted on the issue whether to delete Section 5 or not; we voted
on the deletion of Section 6.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): May the Chair ask for enlightenment
from the Committee.
MR. ROMULO: Section 5 was amended several times by Commissioners Jamir,
Treas, Regalado and others. All those amendments were accepted and
voted upon by
the body. So, one would presume, therefore, that we have accepted and the
Commission has decided that Section 5 should be retained; otherwise, why
would we
be voting on an amendment on Section 5 and accepting it?
MR. GUINGONA: May I say. Mr. Presiding Officer, that we are following today a
procedure whereby we do not consider anterior amendments and have to
wait for
our turn to be called. Although people might have voted in favor of an
amendment, this does not mean that if a proposal to delete is presented
they would
not prefer the proposal to delete.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: In connection with that statement, I think Commissioner
Guingona should have raised a prejudicial question, or he should have filed a
motion
to delete first before allowing the others to amend the same provision
several times.
MR. GUINGONA: I could not, Mr. Presiding Officer. As a matter of fact, I
approached the Floor Leader two times and he said: You have to wait for
your
turn. So, I obediently waited for my turn.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Maybe we should just give due course to the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Guingona in order to resolve the issue.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair recalls its ruling insofar as
the proposed motion of Commissioner Guingona is concerned.
We, therefore, ask for a vote.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe the vote is not for a
reconsideration at this point because there has been no finding that this has
been voted
on, but on his proposal to delete Section 5.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair appreciates the correction.
The body shall proceed to vote.
All those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Guingona to
delete the whole of Section 5, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised
their
hand.)
All those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
amendment is lost.
MR. BENGZON: May I request that Commissioner Villacorta be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: I am sorry, I registered for another Committee. My name
was not erased by Commissioner Rama. I am sorry about that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The apology is accepted.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request that Commissioner Suarez
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
My amendments are rather simple. May I call the attention of the Committee
members to Section 11, particularly line 16. There is mention here about
complaints filed without the qualifying word verified and the phrase which
reads in any form or manner, which is susceptible to various
interpretations
and could contemplate even the filing of a telephone complaint. We do not
like to constitutionalize harassment under Section 11, but this could be used
as
a weapon of harassment by unscrupulous individuals against even honest
public officials. So to avoid that possibility, Mr. Presiding Officer, may we
suggest this amendment:
On line 16, I propose to delete the word the and instead insert the word
VERIFIED before complaints, and then after filed delete the comma (,)
together with the phrase in any form or manner. Therefore, Section 11, as
proposed to be amended, would read: The Ombudsman and his Deputies,
as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on VERIFIED complaints filed
against public officials or employees of the government, including
government-owned corporations, agencies or instrumentalities, and shall
notify the complainants of the action taken and the results thereof.
MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I wonder if Commissioner Suarez was
present during the discussion last Saturday when we explained the main
thrust of
Section 11. One of the principal functions of the officer contemplated in this
section is the capability to attend and act immediately on complaints not
leading to prosecution but to correction or implementation of the request,
either phoned in, or simply made orally or even in writing. What we wish to
cure
is the despair of the common people with our government officials. We have
entrenched the administration with public officials who are beyond the reach
of
common people. It is a very common and sad spectacle to see people going
from one government office to another, trying to secure redress for their
common
complaints of inaction, abuse, arbitrariness on the part of public officials. In
other places like Nassau County, the United States, Singapore and Japan,
people are free to call in, to use the telephone simply. For instance, when
going to an office, they are made to return day after day, either because the
official concerned did not come to work or simply they are told, I am very
busy. Will you please come back this afternoon? These are common
complaints of
our people.
MR. NOLLEDO: In addition to that, most of the complainants are fishermen,
peasants, the poor, and to require them to have verified complaints would be
foolhardy. They will have to go to a lawyer and perhaps, if they cannot afford
one, shall decide not to complain anymore. Besides, Mr. Presiding Officer,
the Ombudsman is empowered. to publicize and, therefore, will not readily
publicize any complaint. He will take into account all the factors involved in
connection with the complaint and so there will be no harassment. I think it
is understood that the Ombudsman, in taking into account complaints filed
with
his office, should see to it that no undue harassment shall result.
Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank the Gentleman for the expression of the noble
sentiment behind the formulation of this provision but it may not jibe with
lines 19 and
20 because if it is an anonymous call or an anonymous letter, how do we
expect the Ombudsman or his Deputies to notify the complainants of the
action
taken and the results therefor?
MR. COLAYCO: If it is anonymous, there is nothing that the Ombudsman can
act upon.
MR. SUAREZ: But the Committee used the mandatory words shall notify,
Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. COLAYCO: That is correct, under circumstances which make it possible. I
suppose that is clear.
MR. SUAREZ: This may not harmonize with the expression in any form or
manner the complaint can be filed. So, probably with the explanation of the
Gentleman, I am willing to concede the validity of the arguments, but let us
try to formulate another prescription for this requirement regarding
notification. That is my humble suggestion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, would the Gentleman suggest that we
say and shall WHERE APPLICABLE, notify?
MR. SUAREZ: That is better. I will go for that. So with that proposed
amendment from the Committee I will not press my original amendment
anymore.
Thank you.
MR. COLAYCO: What would Commissioner Suarez suggest?
MR. SUAREZ: I would suggest and shall, WHENEVER APPLICABLE, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the results thereof.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection to this proposed
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is
approved.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we proceed further, I have been
asked to announce that if possible the body should adjourn at about six-thirty
because of Commissioner Calderons affair.
May I request that Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized.
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a point of inquiry. We have a
substantial amendment on the procedure for impeachment that needs to be
considered by
the body. This might be the appropriate time to take it up and with due
indulgence of the others, if theirs are perfecting amendments and not
substantial
amendments, would it be possible to take up the procedure for impeachment
as agreed upon by the three major proponents of this Article?
MR. BENGZON: With the permission of Commissioners de los Reyes and Ople
the last Commissioner actually to propose that amendment was
Commissioner Aquino
I would like to request that Commissioner Aquino be called.
MR. MONSOD: I believe that the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople
is quite short. May we ask Commissioner de los Reyes?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is also short.
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On line 20 of page 2, after the phrase preside but shall
not vote because we amended that yesterday I propose to add the
following
sentence: IN CASE OF DEATH, DISABILITY, REMOVAL OR RESIGNATION OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE MOST SENIOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SHALL PRESIDE
AND IF FOR THE SAME
REASONS HE COULD NOT PRESIDE, THE NEXT SENIOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
SHALL PRESIDE. THE SAME RULE SHALL APPLY IF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING
SENIOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
COULD NOT PRESIDE FOR THE SAME REASONS.
Mr. Presiding Officer, it is possible that during an impeachment process
something happens to the Chief Justice in which case the President can
frustrate
his impeachment by not appointing a Chief Justice. That is the concept.
MR. ROMULO: May we just suggest? Normally, if the Chief Justice cannot
preside, an Acting Chief Justice is appointed. May we not refer to the Acting
Chief
Justice instead?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, but suppose the President does not appoint any
Acting Chief Justice because he is the one under impeachment? So, we must
make an
automatic rule in the Constitution itself.
MR. ROMULO: May we ask Commissioner Concepcion if the appointment of
an Acting Chief Justice is automatic or done by the President?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Concepcion is
recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: There is no need under the law. Whenever the Chief
Justice is absent or the position is vacant, the Senior Associate Justice will
perform
his duties.
MR. DE LOS REYES: With the explanation of Commissioner Concepcion, I
withdraw my amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On Section 4, page 3, I propose to insert the words
PRESENT ANTI-GRAFT COURT KNOWN AS THE between The and
Sandiganbayan, and to
delete created and the whole of lines 2 to 4 up to the word it. The whole
amended sentence will therefore read as follows: The PRESENT ANTI-GRAFT
COURT KNOWN AS THE Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and
exercise its jurisdiction as provided by law. My point is that there are some
who believe
that the word Sandiganbayan should not be deleted from the Constitution.
So, this is a compromise between those who want to call it an Anti-Graft
Court
and those who want to retain the name Sandiganbayan .
MR. MONSOD: We will accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : Is there any objection to the proposed
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is
approved.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we request Commissioner Ople to
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I refer to Section 12 (5) on page 5. May I propose an amendment by
transposition and the addition of just a phrase which will read as follows: TO
PUBLICIZE
MATTERS COVERED BY ITS INVESTIGATIONS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES SO
WARRANT AND WITH DUE PRUDENCE. The reason, Mr. Presiding Officer, is
that publicity will be a
major tool of the Sandiganbayan in creating the moral pressures it will need
in order to perform. At the same time, not all those who will file complaints
are well-meaning persons and they can avail of the presence of the
Sandiganbayan and its powers to give the color of privilege to complaints
that may not
be well-founded. Therefore, we simply urge the office of the Ombudsman to
exercise due care and prudence in publicizing matters covered by its
investigations so that there is no undue injury to the reputation of persons. I
seek the Committees approval of this proposed amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee accepts the proposed
amendment also; this has reference to the earlier comments of
Commissioners Sarmiento
and Suarez.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the proposed amendment on Section 3 (5)
would seek to transfer the jurisdiction of the impeachment trial pertaining
only
to the President from the Senate to the Supreme Court, such that I would
seek co-sponsorship with Commissioner Guingona to propose an amendment
by
substitution on Section 3 (5), page 2, beginning on line 15. The proposed
amendment reads: The Senate shall have the sole power to try
impeachment CASES
AFFECTING THE VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS. When the President is on
trial, the Supreme Court
shall BE CONVENED AS THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate IN THE
CASE OF THE. VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS OR OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE
OF THE PRESIDENT.
MR. ROMULO: For reasons we have already explained, the Committee regrets
that we cannot accept that amendment principally because we believe this is
a
political act. The Presidents peers who are equally elected are a better judge
of the matter; finally, we feel it would politicize the Supreme Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Does Commissioner Aquino ask for a
vote?
VOTING
proposed amendment of Commissioner Aquino, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised
their hand.)
their hand.)
amendment is lost.
MR. BENGZON: May I request that Commissioner Regalado be recognized.

MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I propose the following amendments to
Section 3 (2), (3), (4) and (5). There have been copies already circulated
among
the Members although I put in a few minor perfecting phrases on Section 3
(2) to read as follows: A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by
any
of its members or by ANY citizen which shall be INCLUDED IN THE ORDER OF
BUSINESS WITHIN TEN SESSION DAYS AND referred to the proper committee
WITHIN THREE
SESSION DAYS THEREAFTER.
MR. ROMULO: Excuse me, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO. Will the Committee seek clarification because the provision on
impeachment given to us bears the notation that it is a joint proposal of
Commissioners Maambong, Davide and Regalado. And it is on Section 3.
MR. REGALADO: I received it just now; I really have not had the time to
scrutinize it carefully.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: To clarify matters, I would like to explain that I culled all
these provisions from the proposals of Commissioners Davide, Regalado and
myself. If the body will notice, I was the only one who signed it because I
really had no time to confer directly with Commissioner Regalado. But all the
things included in the various proposals are inside and, as stated by
Commissioner Regalado, it is only a matter of probably arranging them. The
substance
is all there. So, we need not worry that there will be substantial deviation.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have decided to put in an additional
section because, for instance, under Section 3 (2), there is mention of
indorsing a verified complaint for impeachment by any citizen alleging
ultimate facts constituting a ground or grounds for impeachment. In other
words, it
is just like a provision in the rules of court. Instead, I propose that this
procedural requirement, like indorsement of a complaint by a citizen to avoid
harassment or crank complaints, could very well be taken up in a new
Section 4 which shall read as follows: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROMULGATE
ITS RULES ON
IMPEACHMENT TO EFFECTIVELY CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES THEREOF. I think
all these other procedural requirements could be taken care of by the Rules
of the
Congress.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Has Commissioner Regalado circulated
the proposed amendment to all the Members?
MR. REGALADO: I already did this morning, Mr. Presiding Officer, although
after consultation I decided to add something more.
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I suggest that we suspend the session for two or three
minutes so we can approach the Committee. Probably, we can iron this out
without
clogging so much our records.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is suspended.
It was 6:10 p.m.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I request that Commissioner Regalado be recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I am now on Section 3 (2), which I propose to be reworded as follows: A

verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any of its members, or
by ANY
citizen UPON A RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT BY ANY MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE, WHICH SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS WITHIN
TEN SESSION DAYS AND REFERRED
TO THE PROPER COMMITTEE WITHIN THREE SESSION DAYS THEREAFTER.
THE COMMITTEE, AFTER HEARING AND BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL ITS
MEMBERS, SHALL SUBMIT ITS
REPORT TO THE HOUSE WITHIN SIXTY SESSION DAYS FROM SUCH REFERRAL,
TOGETHER WITH THE CORRESPONDING RESOLUTION. THE RESOLUTION
SHALL BE CALENDARED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE WITHIN TEN SESSION DAYS FROM RECEIPT
THEREOF FROM THE COMMITTEE.
Section 3 (3) is proposed to read: A VOTE OF AT LEAST ONE-THIRD OF ALL
THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE SHALL BE NECESSARY TO INITIATE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS,
EITHER TO AFFIRM A RESOLUTION OF IMPEACHMENT BY THE COMMITTEE OR
OVERRIDE ITS CONTRARY RESOLUTION. THE VOTES OF EACH MEMBER SHALL
BE RECORDED.
Section 3 (4) shall read: IN CASE THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT OR RESOLUTION
OF IMPEACHMENT IS FILED BY AT LEAST ONE-THIRD OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE, THE
SAME SHALL CONSTITUTE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND THE TRIAL
BY THE SENATE SHALL FORTHWITH PROCEED.
Section 3 (5) remains as such:
No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one year
Of course, there will be the additional section, which reads: THE CONGRESS
SHALL PROMULGATE ITS RULES ON IMPEACHMENT TO EFFECTIVELY CARRY
OUT THE PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to ask a few questions if the Gentleman will yield.
Under the 1935 Constitution, the vote needed in the Senate was threefourths. Now it is being reduced to two-thirds, is that correct?
MR. REGALADO: That is right.

MR. RODRIGO: And under the 1935 Constitution, the vote needed in the
House was two-thirds.
MR. RODRIGO: Now it is being reduced to one-third.
MR. RODRIGO: Why the very big jump in the case of the House? Why not
from two-thirds to one-half?
MR. REGALADO: In conjunction with the 1973 Constitution, the vote required
to initiate impeachment proceedings was one-fifth; the vote needed to
convict
was two-thirds. The Committee originally proposed a majority. We
considered, however, the fact that, as contemplated in the constitutional
framework, there
may be 200 to 250 Members of the House of Representatives. Therefore, if
we follow the 1973 Constitution which requires one-fifth, with a maximum of
250
Members of the House of Representatives, the votes of only 50 will be
required. We feel that it would be very easy to get that vote to initiate
impeachment
proceedings, especially considering, first, that impeachment proceedings
will necessarily be upon the initiation of the opposition, and that we do not
discount the fact that the opposition could easily get or muster the required
number of votes if we stick to the 1973 Constitution.
On the other hand, the 1935 Constitution which requires a vote of two-thirds
to initiate the impeachment proceedings was a little too demanding because
a
bigger number of votes is needed just to initiate the proceedings. If we stick
to the 1973 Constitution, the President may be the subject of harassment by
the initiation of impeachment proceedings every year. On the other hand, if
there is really a need for impeachment proceedings to be initiated, and if we
stick to the 1935 Constitution which requires a vote of two-thirds, then 167
votes will be required.
So, we thought that a happy compromise could be drawn by putting it at
one-third, neither to make it very easy to initiate nor to make it very difficult
to
initiate. And one-third of 250 will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 83 or
84.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in order that the body can vote, I
propose an amendment to the amendment. Instead of one-third, I propose
one-half of
all the Members of the House. I will explain in two or three sentences.
Impeachment is a very serious matter, that is why in the 1935 Constitution, a
two-thirds vote of the House was required. Now, we are reducing it to
one-third, which is too drastic a drop. Let us reduce it to one-half. Secondly,
the proponent himself was afraid of harassment but one-third is easy to
get. The President as well as the Members of the Senate can be harassed
because if one-third of the Members of the House voted in favor of the
impeachment,
the Members of the Senate will be compelled to sit in judgment. Even the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be harassed because he will be
compelled
constitutionally to preside in the Senate during the impeachment trial.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does Commissioner Regalado say
on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think one-third is a happy
compromise between the exacting requirements under the 1935 Constitution
and the very
liberal requirements under the 1973 Constitution, either of which has its
dangers.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Therefore, will the Gentleman not
accept?
MR. RODRIGO: The requirement under the 1973 Constitution was different
because we had a unicameral body and the body itself was the one to try.
Whereas,
here it is a bicameral body.
MR. REGALADO: But whether it was unicameral or bicameral, the fact
remains that the initiation proceedings are in the same House of
Representatives.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, the matter has been sufficiently
discussed. What does the Acting Floor Leader desire?
MR. BENGZON: We should vote now, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is the proposed amendment of

Commissioner Rodrigo accepted by Commissioner Regalado?
MR. REGALADO: I regret I cannot accept.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : What does the Committee say on the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Regalado?
MR. ROMULO: We are accepting Commissioner Regalados amendment, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Just a matter of parliamentary procedure. We should vote
first on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo before the Committee
accepts the
amendment of Commissioner Regalado.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The body shall proceed to vote.
As many as are in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner
Rodrigo, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
their hand.)
amendment is lost.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer may I request that the Chairman of the
Committee be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chairman of the Committee is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are accepting the amendment of
MR. NATIVIDAD: May we have the amendment stated again, so we can
understand it. Will the proponent please state the amendment before we
vote?
MR. REGALADO: The amendment is on Section 3 (3) which shall read as

follows: A VOTE OF AT LEAST ONE-THIRD OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE SHALL BE
NECESSARY TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, EITHER TO AFFIRM A
RESOLUTION OF IMPEACHMENT BY THE COMMITTEE OR TO OVERRIDE ITS
CONTRARY RESOLUTION. THE
VOTES OF EACH MEMBER SHALL BE RECORDED.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How many votes are needed to initiate?
MR. BENGZON: One-third.
MR. NATIVIDAD: To initiate is different from to impeach; to impeach is
different from to convict. To impeach means to file the case before the
Senate.
MR. REGALADO: When we speak of initiative, we refer here to the Articles
of Impeachment.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, that is the impeachment itself, because when we
impeach, we are charging him with the Articles of Impeachment. That is my
understanding.
MR. BENGZON: Shall we vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection to the proposed
amendment having been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair
hears none;
the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not believe there are any other
Commissioners that would want to present amendment; therefore, I move
that the
period of amendments be closed.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we have already approved Section 3
(3). so may I know whether (2), (4) and (5) are also considered accepted by
the
Committee?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): May we hear from the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we have accepted those
amendments.

recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: We have already approved the amendment proposed by
Commissioner Regalado, but I would just like to enter into the Record a
fact . . . I will
wait for my turn, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Since the Committee has also accepted the amendments in
Section 3 (2), (4) and (5), perhaps the Chair should now call for a division of
the
House or should ask whether or not there would be any objections to wrap
up the whole thing.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection to the proposed
amendments of Commissioner Regalado on Section 3 (2), (4) and (5)?
(Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendments are hereby approved.
MR. REGALADO: There is still one more question with respect to the proposed
amendment by addition, reading: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROMULGATE ITS
RULES ON
IMPEACHMENT TO EFFECTIVELY CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS
SECTION. This can either be Section 3 (6) or as a matter of style it may
become Section 4. It
does not matter where it will be placed, but at least the substance is that the
Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out
the purposes or the purpose of this section.
MR. REGALADO: If it will be in Section 3 (6), it will be for the purpose of
carrying out the purpose of this section. If it will be incorporated as a new
Section 4, it will merely read: TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THE
PRECEDING SECTION.
MR. ROMULO: I suggest that we make it Section 3 (6).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Does the Committee accept?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we request that Commissioner

Maambong be recognized.
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am not moving for a reconsideration
of the approval of. the amendment submitted by Commissioner Regalado,
but I will
just make of record my thinking that we do not really initiate the filing of the
Articles of Impeachment on the floor. The procedure, as I have pointed out
earlier, was that the initiation starts with the filing of the complaint. And
what is actually done on the floor is that the committee resolution
containing the Articles of Impeachment is the one approved by the body.
As the phraseology now runs, which may be corrected by the Committee on
Style, it appears that the initiation starts on the floor. If we only have time, I
could cite examples in the case of the impeachment proceedings of President
Richard Nixon wherein the Committee on the Judiciary submitted the
recommendation, the resolution, and the Articles of Impeachment to the
body, and it was the body who approved the resolution. It is not the body
which
initiates it. It only approves or disapproves the resolution. So, on that score,
probably the Committee on Style could help in rearranging these words
because we have to be very technical about this. I have been bringing with
me The Rules of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress. The
Senate
Rules are with me. The proceedings on the case of Richard Nixon are with
me. I have submitted my proposal, but the Committee has already decided.
Nevertheless, I just want to indicate this on record.
MR. BENGZON: May I finally move that we terminate the period of
amendments on the Article on the Accountability of Public Officers.
MR. BENGZON: May I move that the Secretariat furnish us tomorrow morning
with a clean copy of the Article on the Accountability of Public Officers before
we vote on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Secretariat is so requested to

furnish all Members with the Article on the Accountability of Public Officers as
requested by the Acting Floor Leader.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we adjourn until tomorrow at
nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : The session is adjourned until
tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
It was 6:33 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 42
Tuesday, July 29, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
led by the Honorable Jose E. Suarez.
PRAYER
MR. SUAREZ: Dear Lord, I am not much at saying prayers. I do not have to
tell You because You already know that I have been privately communicating
with
You rather frequently since the beginning of June, seeking Your divine
guidance in making correct decisions for our people.
I entered this Commission awed by the enormity of the task before us.
Having just emerged from the streets battling the evil forces of the
dictatorship, I
did not feel exactly comfortable in the presence of a select group. Midway to
our common goal, however, I feel so relaxed with my colleagues. Everybody
is
so contributive and supportive. I have never worked with a nicer bunch of
ladies and gentlemen. Imbued with a deep sense of nationalism, they serve
as an
inspiration to me.
And, dear Lord, there is so much talent and decency around me that I pray to
see the day when, in the not-too-distant future, these colleagues of mine will
walk the corridors of power. Then, perchance, if they see me pounding once
again the streets of Central Luzon clamoring for justice for our people, they
will give me a knowing smile of recognition, or perhaps even a shaking of the
head which, after all, if we are to believe Dick, could signify an approval.
Dear Lord, take good care of my colleagues, especially the frail and fragile
Fely, the ailing Pepe, Cosoy and Efrain who, I was cheered to learn last
night, has not changed his sex at all. I pray that our dear leader, the kindly
Celing, shall be in good health in order that we may continue making honest
decisions for our country and our people, that we may succeed in finally
establishing a just and humane government. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will please call the roll.
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present *
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present *
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present *
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present *

MR. RAMA: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of
yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of
yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of

Business.
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolution on First
Reading, Communications and Committee Report, the President making the
corresponding
references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 535, entitled:
RESOLUTION IN RECOGNITION BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF
THE INVALUABLE SUPPORT AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE PHILIPPINE SOCIAL
SCIENCE COUNCIL IN THE
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AND FOR PROVIDING RESOURCE MATERIALS FOR
THE DRAFTING OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION.
Introduced by Hon. Bennagen, Villacorta and Garcia.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Jose Leonidas of 128 N. Domingo St., San Juan, Metro Manila,
urging the Constitutional Commission to adopt some measures for the
preservation of the environmental balance.
Communication from Bishop Emerito P. Nacpil and Mr. Emmanuel G. Cleto
both of the United Methodist Church in the Philippines, submitting
suggestions from a
group of lay persons and clergy, entitled: Theories of a Constitution for the
Filipino People, Today and for the Future.

Communication signed by Ms. Mila Polotan and seven hundred seventyseven others, urging the Constitutional Commission not to incorporate in the
Constitution the issue of the U.S. bases. aisadc
Letter from Mr. Wilfred D. Asis of Room 207, Ong Hoc Bldg., Butuan City,
submitting various constitutional proposals for consideration by the
Letter from Prof. L. V. Toralballa of 4762 Neptune Drive, Alexandria, Va.,
U.S.A. 22309, expressing his thoughts in a political synthesis, entitled: A
Democracy for the Philippines.
Letter from Msgr. Manuel Dormido of P.O. Box 883, Bacolod City, suggesting a
Maharlika system of government which is similar to the parliamentary
system of
government.
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Candido B. Talosig of Saint Marys College, Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya, containing various constitutional proposals for consideration
by the
Letter from Mr. Meletico Palomata of 31 Camias St., Zone 1, Purok 2, Signal
Village, Taguig, Metro Manila, containing some revelations regarding the
Sabah issue.
Principles.
Position paper submitted by Mr. William H. Quasha of Don Pablo Bldg., 114
Amorsolo St., Makati, Metro Manila, proposing that foreign investors be
allowed
to acquire and own land in the Philippines as an investment incentive, with
appropriate restrictions.
Communication from Mr. Moises B. Dayon, Acting Secretary, Sangguniang
Panlungsod, Davao City, submitting Resolution No. 240, S. 1986 of said
sanggunian,
supporting the move in the Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the
Constitution provisions on free secondary education in public schools.
Communication signed by Miss Josefa de Lange of 39 11th St., New Manila,
Quezon City, and four hundred ninety-eight others with their respective
addresses,
seeking the inclusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging the State to
protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Dionito B. Aplacador of Cataingan West, Masbate, containing
suggestions on the various issues in the Constitutional Commission.
Letter from Sr. Luz Emel Soriano, r.a., and two hundred seventy-six others,
saying that the issue of U.S. military bases should not be in the Constitution
and should be left to the government to negotiate so as to protect the
national interest.
Letter from Ms. Perla Golez of Bacolod City and sixty-nine others also of
Bacolod City and other municipalities/cities in Negros Occidental, requesting
the
inclusion of provisions providing for religious instruction during regular school
hours to be materially and financially supported by the government.
(Communication No. 371 Constitutional Commission Of 1986)
Letter from Mr. Vicente Roy L. Kayaban, Jr. of 1649 Concepcion Aguila St., San
Beda Subdivision, San Miguel, Manila, submitting a paper, entitled: Land
Re-form: a Landowners Introspection, and requesting that small landowners
be accorded legislative seats: at least one for the agrarian sector and at
least one for small apartment owners.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Laufred I. Hernandez for the students of the College of Public
Administration, University of the Philippines, submitting recommendations on
the right of civil servants to collective bargaining, prohibition of government
resources for electioneering purposes, prohibition of nepotism and
provisions for human resources development.
(Communication No. 373 Constitutional Commission Of 1986)
Communication from Muslim and Christian leaders who attended a
SOLIDARITY-sponsored seminar on Mindanao, urging a clear policy statement
regarding Mindanao
and Muslim affairs, among others.

COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 34 on Proposed Resolution No. 534, as reported out by
the Committee on Social Justice, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A SEPARATE
ARTICLE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 19,
20, 25, 37, 82, 91, 93, 100, 113, 126, 167, 171, 180, 181, 227, 253, 277,
279,
316, 320, 340, 342, 343, 366, 376, 379, 397, 398, 413, 419, 421, 425, 426,
429, 431, 479, 491, 504, 509, 513, 515 and 520.
Sponsored by Hon. Nieva, Gascon, Tadeo, Monsod, Aquino, Brocka, Suarez,
Ople, Quesada, Bacani, Garcia, Lerum, Tan, Villacorta, Bennagen, Bengzon, Jr.
and
Rodrigo.
MR. RAMA: The copies of the Article on Accountability of Public Officers have
not yet been distributed, and, therefore, the voting on Second Reading on
the
said Article has to be deferred.
On the other hand, the Chairman and the members of the Committee on the
Executive are ready to sponsor their Article on the Executive. So, I move that
we
consider Committee Report No. 26 on Proposed Resolution No. 517 as
reported out by the Committee on the Executive.
motion is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I be clarified, Madam President, on whether or not we

have to discuss a pending incident not yet resolved by this body which is the
matter of sectoral representation?
MR. RAMA: I have been informed, Madam President, by one of the
protagonists of the party list and sectoral issue that they are not yet ready to
present a
compromise scheme. So, they are asking for some more time to strike a
compromise agreement.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will have that particular issue later in the day.
MR. RAMA: We will take it up later in the day.
MR. LERUM: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: May we know the name of the protagonists who say that they
are not ready, because we are ready?
MR. RAMA: My understanding is that Commissioners Monsod, Bernas and
Villacorta are going to take up this matter.
MR. LERUM: Thank you, Madam President, for the information.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that the Chairman of the Committee on the Executive
and the members come forward and take their seats?
THE PRESIDENT: The Honorable Sumulong and the other members of the
Committee on the Executive will please come forward.
Before we proceed further, the Chair wishes to acknowledge the presence of
students from St. Scholasticas College and other schools and a group of
women
led by Deputy Foreign Minister Leticia Ramos Shahani, who are here to
witness our proceedings this morning.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 517
(Article on the Executive)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

MR. RAMA: I move that we consider Committee Report No. 26 on Proposed
Resolution No. 517 as reported out by the Committee on the Executive.
motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 517 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the
proposed resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole
text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. Proposed Resolution No. 517, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
THE EXECUTIVE.
(The following is the whole text of the substitute resolution per C.R. No. 26.)
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 26
The Committee on the Executive to which were referred the following:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION LIMITATIONS ON
THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY TO PROCLAIM MARTIAL LAW OR SUSPEND
THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS BY LIMITING ITS DURATION AND REQUIRING
CONCURRENCE BY THE LEGISLATURE, EXPRESSLY VESTING UPON THE
SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE
INTO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCLAMATION OR
SUSPENSION AND TO SET ASIDE THE SAME IF NO BASIS EXISTS, AND
GRANTING THE LEGISLATURE THE
AUTHORITY TO REVOKE OR EXTEND A PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION.
Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.
Note: The Committee adopted P.R. No. 9 in consolidation with P.R. Nos. 107
(Foz), 151 (Bengzon, Jr.), 152 (Romulo) and 158 (Azcuna) as its joint working
draft and submitted a Report (designated as C.R. No. 5) dated June 24, 1986
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FURTHER LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE

PRESIDENT TO GRANT PARDONS.
Note: This is covered by C.R. No. 6, dated June 25, 1986
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION
PROHIBITING THE PRESIDENT FROM EXTENDING APPOINTMENTS WITHIN SIX
MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TERM OF THE PRESIDENT.
Note: Covered by C.R. No. 8 dated June 27, 1986
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING FOREIGN BORROWINGS OR LOANS.
Introduced by Hon. de Castro.
Note: The Committee adopted P.R. Nos. 59 and 124 (Ople, de los Reyes and
Maambong) as its joint working drafts, is covered by C.R. No. 12, July 3, 1986
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT IN A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW, THE CIVILIAN
AUTHORITY SHALL CONTINUE TO BE SUPREME OVER THE MILITARY, THE
BASIC RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE
SHALL REMAIN INVIOLABLE, AND THE CIVILIAN COURTS SHALL CONTINUE TO
FUNCTION AND EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION.
Introduced by Hon. Foz.
Note: Consolidated with P.R. No. 9
REQUIRING THE APPROVAL OR CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE
EFFECTIVITY AND VALIDITY OF
TREATIES, EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS AND RECOGNITION OF STATES OR
GOVERNMENTS.

Note: This is covered by C.R. No. 10
RESOLUTION REQUIRING CONCURRENCE OF THE CENTRAL MONETARY
AUTHORITY AND DUE NOTICE TO THE LEGISLATURE BEFORE GOVERNMENT
GUARANTEES ARE EXTENDED TO FOREIGN
BORROWINGS.
Introduced by Hon. Ople, de los Reyes, Jr. and Maambong.
RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS
OF THE CABINET AND THEIR DEPUTIES FROM HOLDING ANY OTHER OFFICE
AND FROM ENGAGING IN
ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY GIVE RISE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO CONFLICT OF
INTEREST IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR OFFICE, AND TO PROHIBIT THE
PRACTICE OF NEPOTISM BY
SAID OFFICIALS.
Introduced by Hon. Ople, de los Reyes, Jr. and Maambong.
Note: The Committee adopted P.R. No. 128 in consolidation with P.R. No. 183
(Nolledo) as its working draft; is covered by C.R. No. 9, June 27, 1986
RESOLUTION TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO DECLARE MARTIAL
LAW OR SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THIRTY DAYS ONLY
UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS/NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR A LONGER PERIOD.
Introduced by Hon. Bengzon, Jr.
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE LIMITS TO THE EXERCISE OF MARTIAL LAW
POWERS BY THE EXECUTIVE.
Introduced by Hon. Romulo.

RESOLUTION PROPOSING A SIX-YEAR TERM OF THE PRESIDENT, PROHIBITING
IMMEDIATE REELECTION, AND PROVIDING FOR A POSSIBLE MID-TERM
ELECTION.
Introduced by Hon. Azcuna.
Note: The Committee considered this incorporated into C.R No. 13, July 7,
1986
RESOLUTION PROPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
TO SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR TO
DECLARE MARTIAL LAW BY
PROVIDING FOR THE CONCURRENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, REVIEW
BY THE SUPREME COURT UPON A WRIT OF AMPARO, AND OTHER LIMITS.
Introduced by Hon. Azcuna.
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT THE SPOUSE OF
THE PRESIDENT OR ANY PERSON RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT WITHIN THE
THIRD DEGREE OF
CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY SHALL NOT BE APPOINTED TO THE CABINET.
Introduced by Hon. Nolledo.
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION
REQUIRING THE CONCURRENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENTS TO HIGH RANKING
POSITIONS IN THE GOVERNMENT.
Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento.
Note: Covered by C.R. No. 14, July 7, 1986

THAT THE CANVASSING OF VOTES IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BY THE
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS PURELY A
MINISTERIAL DUTY.
Introduced by Hon. Natividad, Ople, Maambong and de los Reyes, Jr.
Note: Under Committee Report No. 13, July 7, 1986
RESOLUTION FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE ARTICLE ON THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION REDEFINING THE POWER OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OVER LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS.
Introduced by Hon. Regalado.
Note: Reported out under C .R. No. 11, July 3, 1986
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND
FOR THIS PURPOSE INCORPORATING IN THE DRAFT OF THE NEW
CONSTITUTION THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AS CONTAINED IN THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION
APPROVED BY THE RECONVENED 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
WHICH WERE NOMENCLATURED THEREIN
AS ARTICLE VIII WITH THE TITLE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.
Introduced by Hon. Calderon.
Note: Considered as covered by C.R. No. 13
RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION FOR A PRESIDENTIAL
FORM OF GOVERNMENT SPECIFYING THEREIN THE TERM, QUALIFICATIONS
AND MANNER OF ELECTION OF
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.
Introduced by Hon. Tingson.
Note: The Committee considered this as integrated into the substitute

proposed resolution covered by C.R. No. 13
THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT.
Introduced by Hon. Guingona.
Note: Considered incorporated in C .R. No. 13
RESOLUTION TO LIMIT THE TERM OF PRESIDENT TO SIX (6) YEARS WITHOUT
REELECTION.
Introduced by Hon. Rama.
Note: Considered covered by C .R. No. 13
RESOLUTION TO DELETE FROM THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE PROVISION
GRANTING PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM SUITS AND TO PROVIDE IN THE
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS THAT
SUCH DELETION BE MADE RETROACTIVE.
Introduced by Hon. Nolledo.
Note: Was referred to the Committee on Transitory Provisions, has considered
the same and has the honor to report them back to the Constitutional
Commission with the recommendation that Proposed Resolution No. 517,
prepared by the Committee, entitled:
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 9, 55, 56, 59, 107,
118, 124, 128, 151, 152, 156, 158, 183, 197, 198, 234, 255, 257, 352, and
433,
with Hon. Sumulong, Regalado, Alonto, Aquino, Bernas, Calderon,
Concepcion, Davide, Jr., Foz, Jamir, Lerum, Maambong, Natividad, Rama,
Sarmiento, de
Castro, Ople, de los Reyes, Jr., Bengzon, Jr., Romulo, Azcuna, Nolledo, Tingson
and Guingona as authors thereof.
Each proposed resolution accepted by the Committee was not considered

and amended on a line-by-line basis. Rather it adopted the basic concept or
substance
of the proposed resolution and embodied it in the attached draft of the
Article on the Executive. Thus in this report we indicated in which section of
the
proposed Article on the Executive Department a particular proposed
resolution is reflected:
Proposed Resolution
Section Embodied In
No. 07
15
No. 107
15
No. 151
15
No. 152
15
No. 158
15
No. 55
17
No. 56
13
No. 59
18
No. 124
18
No. 118
20
No. 128
19
No. 183
19
No. 156
No. 198
No. 255
No. 257
No. 352
No. 433
No. 197
16
No. 234
14
(Sgd.) Lorenzo M. Sumulong
Chairman
Committee on the Executive
(Sgd.) Florenz D. Regalado
Vice-Chairman
(Sgd.) Ahmad Domocao Alonto
(Sgd.) Felicitas S. Aquino
(Sgd.) Joaquin G. Bernas
Jose D. Calderon
(Sgd.) Roberto C. Concepcion
(Sgd.) Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
(Sgd.) Vicente B. Foz
(Sgd.) Alberto MK. Jamir
(Sgd.) Eulogio R. Lerum
(Sgd.) Regalado E. Maambong
(Sgd.) Teodulo C. Natividad
(Sgd.) Napoleon G. Rama
(Sgd.) Rene V. Sarmiento

(SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION)
Adjusted to Bicameral Legislature
THE EXECUTIVE
Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled, To incorporate in the new Constitution the following
provisions on the Executive Department:
ARTICLE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the
Philippines.
SECTION 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least
forty years of age on the day of the election, and resident of the Philippines
for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.
SECTION 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall be elected with and in
the same manner as the President and who shall have the same
qualifications and
term of office. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the
President as provided in this Constitution.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet.
SECTION 4. The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a
term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of _________
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six
years thereafter. He shall be disqualified from immediate reelection.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President duly certified
by the board of canvassers of each province or city shall be transmitted to
the seat of the National Government, directed to the President of the Senate.
Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate
shall, not later than thirty (30) days after the day of the election, open all the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law,
canvass the
votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected,
but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes,
one of
them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the members
of the Congress.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President or
Vice-President.
SECTION 5. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of his term, the Presidentelect shall have died, the Vice-President-elect shall become President. If a
President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning
of his term, or if the President shall have failed to qualify, then the
Vice-President shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.
The Congress shall by law provide for the case where neither a
President-elect nor a Vice-President-elect shall have been chosen or shall
have qualified, or both shall have died at the time fixed for the beginning of
their term, declaring who shall then act as President or the manner in which
one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly
until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.
SECTION 6. Before he enters on the execution of his office, the President or
Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill
my duties as President (or Acting President) of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every
man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.
(In
case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted)
SECTION 7. The President shall have an official residence. The President and
Vice-President shall receive a salary to be fixed by law, which shall not be
increased or decreased during their term of office. They shall not receive
during their tenure any other emolument from the government or any other
source.
Unless the Congress shall provide otherwise, the President and the VicePresident shall receive an annual salary of _________ and ________ pesos,
respectively.
SECTION 8. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice-President
during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a
Vice-President from among the members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
all the
members of both Houses of Congress.
SECTION 9. In case of permanent disability, death, removal from office or
resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to
serve the unexpired term. The Congress shall by law provide for the case of
permanent disability, death, removal from office or resignation of both the
President and Vice-President, declaring which officer shall then become
Acting President or the manner in which one shall be selected.
The Congress shall by law provide for the case of death, permanent disability
or resignation of the Acting President at the time the vacancy in the Office
of the President occurs or subsequently thereafter, declaring who shall serve
as President until the President and the Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified, subject to the same restrictions of powers and
disqualifications as the Acting President.
SECTION 10. The Congress shall, at ten oclock in the morning of the third
day after the vacancy occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without
need
of a call and within seven days enact a law calling for a special election to
elect a President and a Vice- President to be held not earlier than
forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill
calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph
____, Section _______ Article VIII of this Constitution and shall become law
upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the
special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall
be exempt from the requirements of paragraph _______, Section _______
Article VIII of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be
suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be
called if the vacancy occurs within seventy days before the date of the next
presidential election.
SECTION 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that he
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and
duties
shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers
and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that
no
inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless a
majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmits within five days to the
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office. Thereupon, the Congress shall decide the issue,
convening within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if not in session. If the
Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written
declaration, or, if not in session, within twenty-one days after it is required to
assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress that
the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice-President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President;
otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
SECTION 12. An Acting President shall not declare martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus without the concurrence of at least a
majority of all the members of the Congress.
Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless
revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or
reassumption of office.
SECTION 13. An incumbent or Acting President shall not make appointments

within two (2) months preceding the date of the next presidential election
and
thereafter until the expiration of the term of the former or the tenure of the
latter, except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued
vacancies would prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
SECTION 14. The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall exercise general supervision
over all local
governments as may be provided by law, and shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.
SECTION 15. The President shall be the commander-in-chief of all the armed
forces of the Philippines and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call
out
such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it,
he
may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, and, with the concurrence of at
least a majority of all the members of the Congress, suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law. The Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, or extend the same if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public
safety requires it.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law
or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof and must
promulgate its decision on the same within thirty (30) days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend
the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or for offenses inherent in or directly
connected
with invasion.
SECTION 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of a
Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the heads of the executive
departments and
bureaus, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain and all other officers
of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by
law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress
may by law
vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the courts,
or in the heads of departments.
SECTION 17. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in
this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves commutations, and
pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction. However, the power to grant
executive clemency for violations of corrupt practices laws may be limited by
legislation.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
SECTION 18. The President may contract or guarantee foreign and domestic
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence
of
the Monetary Board. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty (30) days from
the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a
complete
report of its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or
guaranteed by the government or government-owned and controlled
corporations which
would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt and containing other
matters as may be provided by law.
SECTION 19. The President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and
chiefs bureaus or offices and their assistants shall not, during their term, hold
any other office or employment, nor may they practice any profession;
participate directly or indirectly in any business, or be financially interested
directly in any contract with, or in any financial or special privilege granted
by the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation, and shall strictly
avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree of the President shall not be appointed as minister, deputy minister
or
head of bureau or office.
SECTION 20. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective

unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
SECTION 21. The President shall submit within fifteen days of the opening of
each regular session of the Congress a budget of receipts and expenditures,
which shall be the basis of the general appropriations bill.
SECTION 22. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its
regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time.
MR. RAMA: I move that Commissioner Sumulong be recognized to sponsor
the Article.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sumulong is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER SUMULONG
MR. SUMULONG: May we request the other members of the Committee on
the Executive to come and sit with us?
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission:
The Committee on the Executive has the honor to submit, for consideration
and approval, Proposed Resolution No. 517, proposing to incorporate in the
new
Constitution an Article on the Executive. This Article on the Executive is
based mainly on the many resolutions referred to our Committee for study
and
report. The members of the Committee have studied and discussed these
resolutions which dealt with concrete instances of misuse and abuse of
executive
power during the Marcos regime especially after the declaration of martial
law. The members of the Committee made an intensive and exhaustive study
on the
constitutional proposals contained in those resolutions intended to prevent a
repetition of the misuse and abuse of executive power. At the same time, the
members of the Committee were always on guard and careful in their intense
desire to undo and correct the misdeeds and mistakes of the Marcos regime,
because we might impose safeguards and restrictions which may be
unreasonable and unduly harsh and which might emasculate our future
presidents in the
exercise of executive power.
After giving a brief sketch of how our Committee worked, I shall now
enumerate the salient constitutional changes or reforms that the members of
the
Committee, in collaboration with the authors of the many resolutions referred
to us, have introduced in the Article on the Executive now submitted to the
body for consideration.
The first constitutional change that I will mention is the canvassing of votes
for President and Vice-President. In the 1973 Constitution, the provision on
canvassing of votes for President and Vice-President is as follows:
The returns of every election for President, duly certified by the board of
canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Speaker of
the
Batasang Pambansa, who shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the
election, and in the presence of the Batasang Pambansa, open all the
certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.
It will be remembered that many of the certificates of canvass received from
each province and city by the Batasang Pambansa were objected to by the
supporters of Aquino and Laurel. But based on this provision of -the 1973
Constitution, after the certificates of canvass had been opened, the Speaker
immediately announced the results of the canvass and proclaimed President
Marcos and Mr. Tolentino as elected President and Vice-President,
respectively.
In the Article on the Executive that is submitted for consideration, it is now
provided that after the certificates of canvass had been opened, the
counting and canvassing of the votes for President and Vice-President shall
not immediately be made because, first, there should be a determination of
the
authenticity and due execution of the certificates of canvass before the votes
may be canvassed. That appears in Section 4 of the Article. It is also
provided in Section 4 that the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the
sole judge of all election contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the President and Vice-President. The term of office of the
President and the Vice-President is also in Section 4. We wish to call the
attention of the Members that we have introduced some changes in this
section so that it will conform with the decision reached by the Commission
disqualifying the President from any reelection after a term of six years and
allowing the Vice-President one reelection provided he shall serve for not
more than 12 years. So that, subject to the Transitory Provisions in this
Constitution, Section 4 of the Article should read as follows:
SECTION 4. The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a
term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six
years thereafter. He shall be disqualified from reelection.
We deleted the word immediate. That is the change we made in Section 4.
The next constitutional change concerns the powers of the President as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. This appears in Section 15, page 6
of the
Article and reads as follows:
The President shall be the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the
Philippines and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case
of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, and, with the concurrence of at least a
majority of all the members of the Congress, suspend the privilege of the
writ of
habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
The Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular
or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, or extend
the same if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires
it.
The next paragraphs read:
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law
or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof and must
promulgate its decision on the same within thirty (30) days from its filing.
the privilege of the writ.
connected
with invasion.
Thus, one will note that insurrection has been eliminated as a ground for
declaring martial law or for suspending the writ of habeas corpus and the
phrase
imminent danger thereof has also been deleted. So that under this Article,
the grounds for declaring martial law or suspending the writ of habeas
corpus
are invasion and rebellion when public safety requires it.
It will also be noted that if martial law were to be declared, it has to receive
the concurrence of a majority of the Members of the Congress in order for
it to be effective, and it will only be for 60 days. This 60-day period may be
shortened or extended by a majority vote of the Members of the Congress.
And, whereas before the Supreme Court cannot review the grounds relied
upon by the President in declaring martial law or in suspending the privilege
of the
writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court now has the power of review upon
the filing of an appropriate petition by any citizen, and then the Supreme
Court
is required to promulgate its decision on the matter within 30 days from the
filing of the petition.
It is also stated in this Article the meaning and effect of martial law. It is
made clear that a state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution and it does not supplant the functioning of our civil courts or of
our legislative assemblies. A state of martial law does not authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians
where civil courts are able to function. It will be remembered that when
President Marcos proclaimed martial law on September 21, 1972, at the
same time, he issued a general order, as I remember it, stating that our civil
courts
shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction and powers they have been
exercising. But it was also stated there that our courts cannot take
cognizance of
cases where the validity of the acts performed by President Marcos is in
question. In other words, when an order or letter of instructions or
presidential
decree is issued by President Marcos, that cannot be taken cognizance of by
the civil courts but rather, it will be the military courts that will decide
the matter.
Also, the declaration of martial law does not automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which was not the case when
President
Marcos declared martial law in September 1972. He issued an order, I think it
was General Order No. 3, which allowed the arrest and detention of any
person
simply upon an order authorized by him and issued by the Minister of
National Defense. So that many persons were arrested and detained without
any warrant
of arrest. Soldiers simply went to the houses of these persons and arrested
them, which was completely not authorized because the declaration of

martial
law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
I remember that when this matter was being discussed in the Committee,
there was one resolution referred to the Committee which proposed that a
state of
martial law should last for only 30 days and, in order that a declaration of
martial law may be effective, there should be a concurrence of not only a
majority but a two-thirds vote of the legislature. We thought that to require a
two-thirds concurrence might be quite difficult for the Chief Executive,
considering that the only grounds now for martial law are actual invasion and
actual rebellion. And so, this creates a very dangerous situation in the
country and the enemies of the State may try to prevent Members of the
Congress to attend a session just to prevent a two-thirds concurrence in the
declaration of martial law. That is the reason we required only a majority
concurrence.
The next constitutional change concerns the appointing power of the
President. In the 1935 Constitution, the power of the President to appoint
heads of
executive departments, bureaus, offices, and officers in the Armed Forces
from the rank of colonel in the army to naval captain in the navy, and other
government officials was subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. So, there was a check and balance on the appointing power of
the
President. But in the 1973 Constitution, that requirement of confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments was omitted. And so, from that time,
President
Marcos could appoint anybody without the necessity of obtaining the consent
of a Commission on Appointments. His power to appoint became absolute.
Because
of that, there was no check or balance in the appointments he made
especially in the judiciary and the executive departments.
In this Article, we are restoring that limitation, that the appointing power of
the President should be made subject to consent and confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. Besides restoring the requirement of
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, we have introduced a
provision, authored
by Commissioner Davide and approved by the Committee, that the President
shall not make appointments within two months preceding the date of the
next
presidential election. This is to avoid what is known as midnight
appointments.
An exception was placed on this provision to the effect that temporary

appointments may be made to executive positions which, if left vacant,
would
prejudice the public service or endanger the public safety. This provision
appears in Section 13, pages 5 and 6 of the Article.
The next constitutional change that I would like to bring to the bodys
attention is the power of the President to contract or guarantee domestic or
foreign loans in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. We studied this
provision as it appears in the 1973 Constitution. In the 1973 Constitution, it
is provided that the President may, contract or guarantee domestic or foreign
loans in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
In view of the fact that our foreign debt has amounted to $26 billion it may
reach up to $36 billion including interests we studied this provision in
the 1973 Constitution, so that some limitations may be placed upon this
power of the President. We consulted representatives of the Central Bank
and the
National Economic Development Authority on this matter. After studying this
matter, we decided to provide in Section 18 that insofar as the power of the
President to contract or guarantee foreign loans is concerned, it must receive
the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board.
We placed this limitation because, as everyone knows, the Central Bank is
the custodian of the foreign reserves of our country, and so, it is in the best
position to determine whether an application for foreign loan initiated by the
President is within the paying capacity of our country or not. That is the
reason we require prior concurrence of the Monetary Board insofar as
contracting and guaranteeing of foreign loans are concerned. aisadc
We also provided that the Monetary Board should submit complete quarterly
reports of the decisions it has rendered on applications for loans to be
contracted or guaranteed by the Republic of the Philippines so that Congress,
after receiving these reports, can study the matter. If it believes that the
borrowing is not justified by the amount of foreign reserves that we have, it
can make the necessary investigation in aid of legislation, so that if any
further legislation is necessary, it can do so.
Another constitutional change that we proposed is on the appointing power
of the President insofar as his spouse, relatives and cronies are concerned.
The
first paragraph of Section 19 states the prohibitions:
The President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet and chiefs of bureaus
or offices and their assistants shall not, during their term, hold any other
office or employment, nor may they practice any profession, participate

directly or indirectly in any business, or be financially interested directly in
any contract with, or in any financial or special privilege granted by the
government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
any
government-owned or controlled corporation, and shall strictly avoid conflict
of interest in the conduct of their office.
Regarding the spouse and relatives, the second paragraph reads as follows:
or
The other constitutional change is on the treaty-making power of the
President. In the 1935 Constitution, it is clearly provided that the President
may
enter into treaties and other international agreements with the concurrence
of a majority of the Congress. But in the 1973 Constitution, while there is a
provision under the legislative department which says that the power of the
President to enter into treaties and international agreements shall be subject
to the ratification and concurrence of a majority of Congress, when one
comes to the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony of the nation,
there was
inserted a paragraph to the effect that the President alone can enter into
treaties and international agreements by simply stating that it is in the
interest of the national welfare. Because of this provision, we have made it
clear in this Article on the Executive that no treaty or international
agreement entered into by the President shall be valid and/or effective
without the concurrence of a majority of Congress. There are also new
provisions
here which were not covered in previous Constitutions regarding what should
be done in case of vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President or what shall
be
done in case the President is no longer capable of exercising the powers and
the duties of his office. And on that matter, I would like to yield this
sponsorship to our Vice-Chairman, Commissioner Regalado, who has studied
the provisions on that matter.
Actually, we never had the situation where there was a vacancy in the Office
of the Vice-President and it was felt, as I assumed, there was no necessity
for that. But drawing from the experience of the United States, the Office of
the Vice-President there had been vacant 18 times and that is where the
purpose of mis-position becomes important. Although he is sometimes
derisively called just a spare tire, he assumes importance especially in the
order of
succession because just as it is in the Philippines, the order of succession is
from the President to the Vice-President and, in the absence of both, then
it is provided by law.
In the United States, as I said, the Office of the Vice-President has been
vacant 18 times. Although there was an amendment to the American
Constitution
that is the Twenty-Fifth Amendment which was ratified on February 10, 1967
Section 2 regarding the vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President
received
very little attention at that time. The first time that it assumed significance
was in the unanticipated set of circumstances created by the resignation of
Vice-President Agnew, if the body will recall, to avoid federal criminal
charges. And at the same time, President Nixon himself was under a cloud of
suspicion generated by the Watergate affair. President Nixon nominated
Gerald Ford, a Republican, who was then the minority leader in the House.
But the
Democratic Party controlled both chambers of Congress, and Congress, in
keeping with the Constitution, limited its investigation only to questions of
the
fitness of Mr. Ford. During the interim, between Fords nomination by Nixon
and his confirmation by Congress, there were constitutional questions raised:
What would happen if President Nixon resigns or is removed from office? Who
would now recommend to the Congress the acting President? That is the
importance of this constitutional provision in case there is a vacancy in the
Office of the Vice-President.
With respect to the question of incapacity of the President, of course, the
concomitant question is: Who will determine whether or not he is capable of
discharging the functions of his office? Just in the recent past, in we had the
problem where our President disappeared from public view and there were
speculations and rumors. Despite the contentions that he was incapable, he
stayed on and insisted that he was capable of discharging the functions of
his
office, and the reason for his disappearance from public view for a number of
weeks was that he was writing a book. So, again, we took into account
Section
3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because
it deals with that situation. And that is translated in Section 11 of our
proposed draft Article, that whenever the President transmits to the National
Assembly his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office, well and good, because he has transmitted it. But he
may not be in a position to make a written declaration or he may not want to
send a declaration or a recognition of his incapacity. Consequently, if he just
agrees or admits that he is incapable of performing the duties of his
office, then the powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President
as acting President. But if the President fails or refuses to do so, then the
remedy is to have a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit to
the National Assembly their written declaration that the President is unable
to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, in which case the VicePresident shall immediately assume the powers. However, if after that the
President
again transmits to Congress his written declaration that the no inability
exists and he wants to resume the powers of his office, then a majority of all
the members of the Cabinet shall transmit their written declaration within
five days to Congress that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and
duties of his office. There is, therefore, a deadlock here the President
contending that he is capable and the majority of the members of the
Cabinet
saying that he is incapable. And the solution, under this Twenty-Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, is that thereupon Congress
shall decide
the conflicting contentions, convening within 48 hours for that purpose if not
in session. And Congress shall, within 21 days after receipt of the written
declaration of the Cabinet, or if not in session within 21 days after it is
required to assemble, determine by a two-thirds vote of all the Members
whether
the President is in truth unable or is able to discharge the functions or his
duties. In the United States, they have had that experience four times: 1)
When President Garfield suffered a lingering death from an assassins bullet;
2) when President Wilson had a physical breakdown during the closing years
of
his second term; 3) when there was concern about the health of President
Roosevelt prior to his fatal attack; and 4) when President Eisenhower was
temporarily disabled by a heart attack at first and later by a serious
operation.
So far, we have not had such problems which could have precipitated a
constitutional crisis, but it is best to anticipate that possibility and withdraw
from the experience of those who had to go through that constitutional
ordeal without a settled rule in the Constitution.
MR. SUMULONG: I will just bring to the attention of the body a last
constitutional change concerning the pardoning power of the President. In
the 1935
Constitution, it is clearly stated and provided that the pardoning power of the
President may be exercised after conviction. But in the 1973 Constitution,
as amended, the phrase after conviction was deleted, so that President
Marcos was able to pardon accused persons even before they have been
tried and
convicted. That was a scandalous situation and that is the reason why we
restore the phrase after conviction in- Section 17 of the Article now
submitted
for consideration. The provision reads:
Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this
Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons,
and remit
fines and forfeitures, after conviction. However, the power to grant executive
clemency for violations of corrupt practices laws may be limited by
legislation.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
With these explanations, the Committee will now welcome interpellations.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we have very important and very beautiful
ladies who are visiting us here, so I move that we suspend the session for a
few
minutes so we can meet them.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a brief time. The women
have requested that they be allowed to present a scroll on womens rights
through
the honorable Deputy Foreign Minister Leticia Ramos-Shahani.
It was 10:47 a.m.
MR. RAMA: May I ask the Chairman and the members of the Committee to
take their seats at the committee table?
Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized?

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to propound some questions to the Chairman and the members
of the Committee on the Executive.
MR. SUMULONG: With pleasure.
MR. NOLLEDO: On page 1, line 12 of the report, the words resident of the
Philippines should be understood to mean not actual residence but
constructive
residence or domicile as applied to Members of the Congress. Am I right,
Madam President?
I would like to follow that up with another question. For example, Mr. Rafael
Salas, who is now the Chairman of the Commission on Population Control of
the
United Nations, has been absent for more than 10 years from the Republic of
the Philippines. When he comes back to the Philippines, may he run for the
position of President?
MR. SUMULONG: The requirement of residence should be actual residence.
MR. NOLLEDO: Should it be actual residence?
MR. SUMULONG: Yes. If one has been abroad for 10 years and he comes back
to the Philippines one year before he runs for the Office of the President, he
is
qualified.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, there is a distinction now on the meaning of residence
with respect to Members of the legislature and the President. It seems to me
that
this should mean merely domicile. He may be temporarily absent from the
Philippines in the exercise of his profession or in order to discharge certain
duties in an agency like the UN but with the intention to come back to the
Philippines. I think he should not be disqualified to run for President. Would
the Chairman reconsider that statement? I would like to refer the question to
Commissioner Regalado, if the Chairman does not mind.
MR. REGALADO: Actually, this provision was taken from Section 3, Article VII
of the 1935 Constitution. And I understand that from the records of the 1935
Constitutional Convention what they envisioned was actual physical
residence in the Philippines, although it may be punctuated every now and

then by
occasional trips abroad, even, say, three months or four months. But the
reason they made the distinction, if such a distinction really exists between
the
executive and the Members of the legislature, is that the legislature as a
separate branch of the government is collective in nature; whereas, in the
case
of the executive department, only one person comprises the power of the
executive.
MR. NOLLEDO: Suppose he was a political exile like Raul Manglapus who
stayed in the United States by reason of the repressive regime in the
country, he
cannot run for President when he comes back to the Philippines after
democracy has been restored.
MR. REGALADO: As I said, it may be punctuated by voluntary absence for a
justifiable reason or because of compulsion to be temporarily absent from
the
Philip- pines. But what is envisioned here is that he was originally an actual
resident of the Philippines and, therefore, it was his domicile. Then his
trips or stay abroad was for justifiable causes but he is still considered a
resident in the concept of domicile because there is the animus revertendi.
But if his stay abroad was with the animus manendi to stay there, then that
break of residence might be taken into account.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, I take it that this should mean domicile?
MR. REGALADO: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: Commissioner Bernas would like to clarify that point.
FR. BERNAS: If the understanding is domicile, this can be broken if a person,
let us say, establishes a permanent residence somewhere else. Perhaps,
becoming a green-card holder of the United States could break this.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you very much.
The next question is with respect to line 19 of page 1. It will be remembered
that when Diosdado Macapagal won as Vice-President with Carlos Garcia as
the
President, he was a jobless Vice-President. He used to roam around, shaking

hands with the people and campaigning for President, and he won the next
time
he ran for the position of President. At that time, all professors of
constitutional law deplored the constitutional void in the 1935 Constitution.
Now, it
seems to me that the void has not been cured perfectly well with the
statement: The Vice-President may be appointed as a member of the
Cabinet. The words
may be indicate that it is discretionary on the part of the President to
appoint the Vice-President. So, it may turn out, in view of the multi-party
system that we are adopting, that the Vice-President-effect may not belong
to the party of the . President and a constitutional void again may take place
because one does not expect the President to appoint him as a member of
the Cabinet; or even if they belong to the same party. there is indifference
between the two, in which case. the President will have no interest in
appointing the Vice-President as a member of the Cabinet. Will the
Committee agree
at the appropriate time that the words may be be changed to SHALL
because we will have another jobless Vice-President? His position would
amount to a
useless appendage in the administrative hierarchy of the country. What does
the Committee say about this, please?
MR. REGALADO: We used the permissive word may because it should be
taken into account that when the Vice-President runs for that office, he is not
running with the intention or expectation or desire to be a member of the
Cabinet. It would be embarrassing for the President to be compelled to
appoint a
Vice-President who refuses to serve in the Cabinet. That will also be an
incursion into the appointing power of the President.
Commissioner Bernas will add some more.
FR. BERNAS: We still follow the principle that a Cabinet member should be of
the Presidents bosom which is very important in the application of the
doctrine of qualified political agency, which says that the acts of Cabinet
members are presumed to be the acts of the President, so that it is
necessary
that whoever is appointed a member of the Cabinet should be somebody
who is completely trusted by the President. So, he is the alter ego; but if the
Vice-President happens to be very different from the President, we should not
expect the President to appoint him member of the Cabinet.
MR. NOLLEDO: On page 2, lines 7 and 8, because of the use of the words
upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof having
reference
to the certificates of canvass covering the positions of President and VicePresident, am I right if I say that the duty of the legislature, that is, the
Congress in joint session assembled, is no longer ministerial in the canvass
of the returns for the offices of the President and Vice-President?
MR. SUMULONG: I will refer the Gentleman to Commissioner Maambong, who
is a member of the Committee and the one who discussed this very
extensively during
the committee meetings.
Will Commissioner Maambong answer that interpellation, please.
MR. MAAMBONG: I did not get the question quite well.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am referring to the use of the words upon determination of
the authenticity and due execution thereof on lines 7 and 8, page 2,
referring
to the certificates of camass of the President and Vice-President. Am I right if
I say that because of the use of these words, the duty of the legislature
to canvass is no longer ministerial?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, the word ministerial has always been
interpreted by the Supreme Court as applicable to the canvass made by the
National
Assembly, and the reason why we did not put the word ministerial in the
Article is, it has been understood in the case of Roxas vs. Lopez and in other
cases. When we used the words authenticity and genuineness, the
question refers to the problem of whether or not the ministerial function is
already
nonministerial. The answer is, it is still ministerial but when we say
authenticity and due execution, what it really means is that the National
Assembly
will look at the certificates of canvass and find out from the face of the
document whether there are flaws in the execution and authenticity of the
document. That is what it means.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, in the event that the legislature finds out
that there are serious defects in the certificates of canvass as when the
seals
are broken, there are a lot of erasures and then many of them are unsigned
and, therefore, authenticity appears to be questionable what will happen?
MR. MAAMBONG: The answer to that is in the phrase in the manner
provided by law. The Committee had to insert the phrase in the manner
provided by law
so that the legislature itself will find out and will make it very specific as to
what flaws or deficiencies in the certificates of canvass can be taken
cognizance of by the canvassing board of tellers, because as of now the
guiding regulations that govern the National Assembly, as I mentioned in the
Committee, are: the rules and regulations of the COMELEC, the Omnibus
Election Code, the jurisprudence from the decisions of the Supreme Court. All
these
things taken together, the legislature is given a notice by using the phrase
in the manner provided by law, so that it will make a determination now of
what are the points which the board of tellers can take cognizance of,
because it is not very clear right now under the laws and regulations, and as
a
matter of fact, that was one of the controversies which arose during the
canvassing of the votes of President Aquino and former President Marcos in
the
last Batasan.
I would like to propound the next question to any member of the Committee,
of course, including the Chairman.
I notice that in case of vacancy in the position of the President, as well as
Vice-President, the Committee is leaving it to Congress to determine the
manner of succession. Why do we not provide in the Constitution now that in
case of vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President. Congress,
in joint session assembled, may elect the person who will act as President
until the President and Vice-President shall have qualified I do not see any
valid reason for the Committee not to adopt that latter provision because
there may be some constitutional chaos that may happen if there should be
no one
who will assume immediately the President and Vice-President in case of
vacancy. Why do we not simplify matters?
MR. REGALADO: We will appreciate the formulation of an amendment to that.
But the reason why we did so is that we felt that a constitutional provision
specifically stating the order of succession after the Vice-President would
make any future changes a little less flexible, because then we will have to
have a plebiscite to amend the Constitution. In the United States, up to now,
the order of succession after the Speaker is also provided by law, not by a
constitutional provision.
MR. NOLLEDO: The next question is with respect to the incapacity of the
President. It is said here that in case of conflict between the claim of the
President that he is capacitated and the claim of the members of the Cabinet
I think the majority thereof that he is incapacitated, it seems to me that
the conflict shall be resolved by a majority vote of the legislature the

House of Representatives and the Senate. We all know that the members of
the
Cabinet are under the control of the President, as specified in Section 14 on
page 6 of the committee report, and they are alter egos of the President.
Does not the Commissioner foresee the possibility that should the members
of the Cabinet, a majority thereof, decide to declare that the President is
incapacitated, the President who is still temporarily discharging his duties or
still discharging his duties may remove them and then change them with
persons who are friendly to him? What is the safeguard against that
possibility? Sometimes the President may sense that the members of the
Cabinet are
meeting secretly with intention to vote and declare that he is incapacitated.
So, he can change them immediately, being alter egos of the President and
under his control.
MR. REGALADO: The President has control over the ministers or the
secretaries, as they may later be called, in the performance of their
respective duties
as ministers. When they meet here for that purpose, they are not in the
discharge of their duties of their ministries but to respond to a political
problem
because of the incapacity of the President. If the President can do that and is
capable of knowing about the cabalistic designs of his ministers, then that
shows he is capacitated, not incapacitated. Secondly, the mere fact that they
appear to be alter egos is for legal purposes; that is, that the act of the
minister is the act of the President. That does not rule out the possibility of
independent-minded and perceptive ministers.
In the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. the VicePresident was among those who should. together with the Cabinet members,
participate in sending a written declaration of incapacity or capacity.
However, the Committee decided to exclude participation on the part of the
Vice-President because in law he would appear to be an interested party.
aisadc
MR. NOLLEDO: On page 6, line 23, with emphasis on the word revoke, I
have a question which I think is very important: When the President
suspends the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or when he declares martial law, must
such declaration or suspension be simultaneously concurred in by the
Congress?
Or is there a possibility that in view of the existence of circumstances
justifying the proclamation or suspension, the President may immediately
suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or immediately declare martial law
and submit the same to the Congress for concurrence? It seems to me that
with
the word revoke, the report of the Committee implies that the President
may immediately declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus without the simultaneous concurrence of the legislature. Am I
right?
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee refers that interpellation to Commissioner
Concepcion.
MR. CONCEPCION: The draft of the proposals submitted by the Committee
requires the concurrence of Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, the declaration of martial law shall take effect
without the concurrence?
MR. CONCEPCION: No. It must be with the concurrence.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to the word citizen on line 27, page 6, I
understand that a citizen need not be a taxpayer. Martial law may involve
additional
disbursement of public funds and it has been a uniform ruling of the
Supreme Court, not only in the Philippines but in the United States, that only
a
taxpayer who is a citizen of the Philippines may question such act of the
government official concerned. Must he be a taxpayer?
MR. CONCEPCION: The proposal of the Committee does not require the
citizen to be a taxpayer.
Lines 23. 24 and 25 are an entirely new provision, but let me begin from the
latter part of line 23:
However, the power to grant executive clemency for violations of corrupt
practices laws may be limited by legislation.
May we know the rationale behind this provision?
MR. SUMULONG: That interpellation is referred to Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
This particular proposal was lifted from a resolution filed by this Member
limiting the power of the President to grant executive clemency. Among the
curtailments provided for in that resolution is that in cases of conviction for

graft and corruption, no executive clemency can be extended to the offender
without the favorable recommendation of the court which rendered the final
decision. But it was the thinking of the Committee that in that respect we
should rather leave it to the legislature to enact the necessary legislation, if
there is a need to really curtail.
My own personal thinking when I submitted that resolution is that in case of
graft and corruption, no executive clemency should be granted without the
concurrence or favorable recommendation of the convicting court, the idea
being that graft and corruption goes into the fabric of public service.
Therefore, no person so convicted for a violation of the public trust or
violation of election laws should be allowed or granted executive clemency
without
the favorable recommendation of the convicting court.
As mandated in the Article on the COMELEC, no pardon or parole can be
granted to a person convicted for an election offense without the favorable
recommendation of the COMELEC. So that is why the Committee merely left
it to ordinary legislation.
Madam President, I have one last question on page 7. Section 18, lines 31 to
32. It says here that the President may contract foreign loans with the
concurrence of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines. It
seems to me that the 1973 Constitution recognizes the Central Bank as the
central monetary authority, but it does not consider the Central Bank as an
independent body.
I think under the Central Bank Act, RA 265, as amended, the members of the
Monetary Board are appointees of the President and most of whom correct
me if
I am wrong are alter egos of the President, like the Minister of Finance, the
head of the Board of Investments and their alternates.
Can we not say that this will not preclude the possibility of considering the
contracting of foreign loans as an exclusive presidential prerogative
considering that the composition of the Monetary Board reflects membership
under the control of the President?
MR. REGALADO: In response to that, it is not correct to state that the entire
membership of the Monetary Board is composed of persons who appear to
be
close to or are alter egos of, the President. There are also representatives
there of the private sectors. As a matter of fact, in the last hearing we had,
there was a move on the part of businessmen to ask for more participation
as members of the Monetary Board.
The reason we put the Monetary Board here is that it is the present central
monetary authority. I understand that in another committee, they are
planning
to change its name to Central Monetary Authority or retain the name
Monetary Board.
We were impaled on the horns of a dilemma. If we were to give the President
unlimited power to contract foreign loans, then we may have a repeat
performance of what we went through. On the other hand, if we were to be
very strict with the President so much so that by the time the authorities
here or
the legislature give their consent, that foreign loan sought to be contracted is
no longer available, or the purpose which it was intended to subserve is
already academic. Instead, we put this as a medium arrangement, a middle
ground, but with the participation also of the legislature in the sense that any
action of the Monetary Board shall periodically be reported quarterly to the
legislature. instead of requiring approval of the Congress which might defeat
the purpose for contracting the foreign loan, at least a quarterly report
should be submitted within 30 days from the beginning of each quarter to
inform
the legislature about the foreign loans that it has acted upon or still to be
contracted. Then, the legislature now participates either to give its
concurrence if it is for a meritorious purpose or to curtail by law the powers
of the Monetary Board.
While it is not stated here although it says here that the prior concurrence
of the Monetary Board is required it is, of course, implicit therein that
the Monetary Board shall act as may be provided by law. In fact, right now
the powers of the Monetary Board are provided by law.
MR. SUMULONG: May we give the floor to Commissioner Villegas.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS. I will just volunteer an information about the Monetary Board
or the central monetary authority. There is a provision in the committee
report
on the national economy stipulating that the Monetary Board should have
majority membership from the private sector, and there is even the
possibility that
in the future, there will be no government official in the Monetary Board, very
much like the Federal Reserve System in the United States.
So, definitely the thinking is that the Monetary Board should be released
from any dependence on the executive, on the Presidents men, so to speak.
However. in the last meeting Central Bank Governor Fernandez said that
temporarily they want to have at least the Finance Minister as a member of
the
Monetary Board for coordination purposes. But definitely the thinking is that
the Monetary Board should be completely independent of the executive.
MR. SUMULONG: Thank you for that information
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to commend the Committee for
deleting Section 17, Article VII, one of the most immoral provisions of the
1973
Constitution, granting the President and his cronies immunity from suits.
MR. REGALADO: Incidentally, my intention has been called by our committee
secretary, that some of the Commissioners may be using the previous
version of
the committee report. I request the Commissioners to look at their copies. It
is the one that has on the upper right hand corner, in parentheses, the words
Substitute Resolution, so that we will not be confused with the pages and
the lines.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de Castro be
recognized.
I have a few observations and questions on Section 15, page 6.
I understand that during the hearing on the Article on the Legislative, the
term imminent danger thereof was eliminated in the proviso authorizing
the
President to declare martial law or to suspend the writ of habeas corpus
because of the alleged abuse of the previous regime. So the term now is
invasion
or rebellion. When there is an actual rebellion or invasion, the President still
cannot declare martial law nor suspend the writ of habeas corpus because
he still has to go to Congress for its concurrence. Is that how I understand

this Section 15?
MR. SUMULONG: The first lines of Section 15 read:
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
So, even without a declaration of martial law, he can call out the Armed
Forces to prevent or suppress invasion or rebellion.
MR. DE CASTRO: Correct, but that is related to the next sentence which
reads:
In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it. he may,
for a period not exceeding sixty days, and, with the concurrence of at least
a majority of all the members of the Congress, suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.
I am now putting myself either as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces or as
President of the Philippines. Of course, that is very far and very remote. But
when I see that there is actual rebellion and people are already marching up
the streets of Metro Manila or up the streets of San Pablo City in my province
and the Armed Forces engage them in actual combat and then arrest, say,
50 of them and put them in jail, it will take time before we can go to judicial
proceedings. Judicial proceedings at that moment may be a little remote
because the Armed Forces are busy fighting.
To require the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus with the
concurrence of Congress will be very difficult because by that time. some
people
would have been arrested or jailed and some would have been killed
because of actual shooting. Actually, the President in this case will suspend
the writ
of habeas corpus without the concurrence of a majority of the Members of
the Congress. That is the situation I can see when we talk of actual invasion.
I questioned the members of the Committee on the Legislative why they
deleted the term imminent danger thereof. They said this is actual
invasion; the
enemies are actually landing on the shores of our coasts. They told me that if
the ships are still in Tokyo en route to the Philippines, we cannot call
that invasion because we do not know where they will land, although there is
an imminent danger thereof.
If there is actual invasion in the Philippines, that is already a state of war. The
possibility that we may capture prisoners, enemy agents and spies is
not remote and we may put them in jail. However, to require a judicial action
before they can be jailed will be very difficult for our Commander-in-Chief.
We are clipping the powers of our Commander-in-Chief because of our
experience with the previous regime.
We should consider that our President is the Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed. Forces. He is responsible for everything that may happen in this
country. We
should not clip his powers.
Will the honorable Committee allow certain amendments to this when the
proper time comes?
MR. REGALADO: Of course. we will welcome amendments.
MR. SUMULONG: Certainly, at the appropriate time.
I an only most concerned with what is happening in our country today. There
are strikes here and there; loyalties are rallying here; and there is shooting
in the countryside. If these escalate into a worse situation as an actual
rebellion, we have clipped the powers of the President to suspend the writ of
habeas corpus or to declare martial law.
My next point is on page 7, line 14. When we say that the confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments on appointees of the President must begin
from the
rank of colonel or captain in the navy, this provision is taken from the 1935
Constitution. During that time, a full colonel in the Armed Forces was a rare
breed, more so a captain in the navy. I think there were only two generals
then. But now, we have so many generals, colonels, major generals, rear
admirals
and so on. This is brought about by the increase of our Armed Forces to some
250,000. About 1.2 percent of these are the general officers. Our general
officers up to brigadier generals are the front line generals. They are the
ones fighting the war for us against insurgency. The major generals are
normally the major service commanders of the Armed Forces, such as the
commanding general of the army, flag officer of the navy, the commanding
generals of
the air force add the constabulary. But now, we are limiting the confirmation
to colonels. They are the hardworking grades; these are the fighting grades
up to brigadier general. May we not raise this a little, so that the
confirmation will only be required beginning with the grade of major general,
the
service commanding general of the Armed Forces? This was recommended
to me very strongly by General Ramos and Deputy Minister Ileto. I fully
appreciate
their stand on the matter considering that those with the rank of one-star
general are the front line generals against insurgency. May the Committee
relent
when the proper time comes?
MR. REGALADO: In other words, Commissioner de Castro would go beyond
the prescription in the 1973 Constitution which would require confirmation
from the
rank of brigadier general or commodore in the navy.
MR. DE CASTRO: No, from major general or rear admiral in the navy.
MR. REGALADO: We will consider that at the proper time and subject to the
corresponding justification.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will do that.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I am a member of the Committee on the
Executive and I was the one who lowered the rank from general to colonel.
The reason for
this is that if we study history, both the recent and the older history, we will
find out that most of the coup d etats were staged by colonels.
MR. RAMA: Coming closer home, we would notice that the February
revolution was staged mostly by the colonels in the Reform the Armed Forces
Movement. I
know because I interviewed most of them. They were the ones who executed
the plan which culminated in the revolution.
I was thinking that the President should have a hand in appointing the
colonels in order to help stop this political instability. So that is the reason for
the insertion of that word.
MR. DE CASTRO: We should take note that the President appoints even the
newly graduated cadets in the Philippine Military Academy as second
lieutenants.
So, the appointment in the military by the President is from the time one
becomes a cadet up to the time he retires from the Armed Forces. So, the
President does not only appoint generals; he appoints the lowest lieutenants
in the Armed Forces.
Talking of the last February revolution and the RAM, I beg to disagree so far
that the RAM is instrumental in the February revolution. I have always
questioned the position of the RAM because there must not be another
organization within the entire military organization as this will create
divisiveness,
as what has been noted now by the present Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces. In fact, during the February revolution, we, the retired generals of the
Armed Forces, questioned the existence of the RAM. We have questioned its
members one by one on many occasions about their business in the Armed
Forces
creating an organization within the organization.
This is the first time in the history of the armed forces anywhere in the world
that an organization was created within the military organization.
I repeat that I beg to differ with the Commissioners belief that the RAM is
instrumental in the February revolution of 1986. History will show that it is
not colonels but normally majors and captains who stage coup d etats. We
have not had any coup d etat yet in our country.
MR. RAMA: I would like to tell the Commissioner that my statement about the
role of the RAM in the last February revolution is based upon my interviews
with the members of the RAM about their history, how they formed that
organization, their objectives, et cetera, harking back to about three years
ago. So,
I came to the conclusion that they played a very big role in the 1986
revolution.
MR. DE CASTRO: I hate to say this but the leaders of the RAM are asking civic
organizations to invite them so that they can project themselves in the
country and put themselves in the newspapers. I know this because an
organization in my town of Binan, Laguna invited me to interpellate a
member of the
RAM who was supposed to be their guest speaker. I asked them: Why is the
guest speaker a RAM member? The answer was that the leadership of the
RAM asked
themselves to be invited. So I said I cannot question them because if I do,
the truth will come out, and if I do not question them on the truth, I might as
well not be there. So, I did not go there. But I know for a fact that the RAM
induced this civic organization in my hometown to invite them as guest
speakers so they can be projected in the newspapers.
Now, let us go back to our subject matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other question?
MR. DE CASTRO: One last matter is on the question of Commissioner Nolledo

about the Monetary Board, which was answered by Commissioner Regalado.
To me,
this will not be a check and balance in our presidential system of
government. To me, the check and balance would be this way: the executive
by the
legislative; and the legislative and the executive by the judiciary.
When we talk of any foreign loan, this is not only thought of in one night, nor
is it thought of in one week. It is a monetary plan or a business plan
which says, for instance, that this year, I will have this amount. Since this is a
plan and not a business proposition thought of in one night, then the
Monetary Board and the executive should have more time in planning for
foreign loans or for guaranteeing other loans. Why not let Congress approve
foreign
loans so as to have a truly effective check and balance in the presidential
system?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rama be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is recognized.
MR. RAMA: With the indulgence of the Committee of which I am a member, I
would just like to point out that although it is concerned about the scandal
that
happened during the last administration, where the President would grant
pardons or reprieves before conviction, I do not believe that the present draft
of
the Committee would fully solve that problem because even after conviction,
a conviction can be appealed. Therefore, I think we should tighten up the
phrase by saying after FINAL conviction, so that we would not allow the
President to exercise judicial powers in derogation of the judicial power
vested
in the judiciary. So, at the proper time, may we insert the word FINAL?
MR. REGALADO: It has always been the understanding that the word
conviction means final conviction because an appealable conviction is
not yet
considered as such. At any rates we will appreciate it if Commissioner Rama
can remind us to insert the word at the proper time for better clarity.
MR RAMA: Another point is regarding the Office of the Vice-president which is
one of the most awkward offices in our government. as shown by the past
experience. The Vice-President has been considered only as a spare tire. At

one time, the Vice-President did nothing but campaign all over the country
against the President and finally, defeated the President who did not give
him any job, because in the Constitution, there was no constitutional function
for the Vice-President. I do not know whether studies have been made by the
Committee about the possible official function we can give to the
Vice-President such as, perhaps, as ex-officio President of the Senate, so that
he would have a definite constitutional function.
MR. REGALADO: We will consider that at the proper time. We are aware of
the fact that in the United States, the Vice-President acts as the Senate
President. We will consider that in conjunction also with the Committee on
the Legislative because we might be intruding into the affairs of the
legislature.
MR. RAMA: Another point is on the martial law power of the President. It says
here that the President can declare martial law with the concurrence of
Congress. It has been explained that there is no effect to such martial law
declaration by the President until concurred in by Congress. Does not the
Commissioner think that we should also try to contemplate the situation
where Congress is not in session and there is an urgent need for the
President to
declare martial law? So on Section 15 between the words Assembly and
suspend, I propose to insert the words WHICH IS AUTOMATICALLY
CONVENED IF NOT IN
SESSION.
MR. REGALADO: I recall that during our deliberations, I invited the attention
of the Committee to that draft proposal of former President Macapagal and
his
group where they did propose the immediate convening by Congress without
call by the President the moment this contingency arises. It is in the
Macapagal
proposal. So I think we can act on this at the proper time.
MR. RAMA: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: On page 7, Section 18, line 30, I just want to know what is
meant by domestic loans.
MR. REGALADO: As already announced by the Chairman, we have deleted

domestic loans there because when Governor Fernandez and Deputy
Governor Singson
appeared in the Committee chaired by Commissioner Villegas, they pointed
out that they have no fiscal authority insofar as domestic loans are
concerned.
That is why the Committee motu proprio decided to cancel the words and
domestic.
MR. MONSOD: I am sorry I did not hear that. I submit.
On page 8, in the recent remarks made by the Commissioner on the intent of
this article on the submission of a report by the Monetary Board to Congress,
did the Commissioner say that the intent here is for Congress to review and
pass on the merits of the loans?
MR. REGALADO: No, actually, this portion was taken from a bill which was
introduced in the past Batasan but was overtaken by its abolition. The
purpose
here is actually just to inform Congress, and we will note that what it should
submit to Congress is a complete report of its decisions on applications for
loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the government.
MR. MONSOD: That is my question. Is the Commissioner saying that the
Monetary Board is obligated to submit a report to Congress or the National
Assembly
before the loans become effective? Does it refer to loans to be contracted or
guaranteed?
MR. REGALADO: Yes. because it will be within thirty days from the end of
every quarter of the calendar year that such a report shall be submitted so
that
Congress may also make representations with the corresponding monetary
officials. But actually, it does not require congressional approval for
contracting
of foreign loans because to do so would make the whole procedure tedious
and cumbersome. At least, Congress knows what is going on, since it
consists of
the representatives of the people who ultimately will have to pay such loans.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. My only concern is that this provision, as it now reads,
seems to say that the loans do not become effective unless they are first
reported to Congress. And we are talking here about quarterly reports.
MR. REGALADO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Should this not be a report on the loans contracted or

guaranteed rather than on loans to be contracted or guaranteed?
MR. REGALADO: What was envisioned in that bill introduced in the past
Batasan was that Congress would be aware of the loans to be contracted
because I
assume that before that, this matter about contracting loans has long been
on the drawing boards. Hence the Monetary Board already knows in its
programming
just, more or less when the government is going to contract the loan. If the
President, however, decides to go right ahead, Congress cannot stop him
from
contracting that loan, although it is the more desirable feature that Congress
be informed in advance.
MR. MONSOD: It is clear that the intent of this provision is for information
purposes only.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, for information purposes only.
I just want to refer to page 6. This may occur in other sections. When this
provision was first drafted by the Committee, was it before or after this body
had decided on a bicameral legislature? Is it the intent now that it is only the
Lower House that will concur in the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus as provided for in Section 15?
MR. REGALADO: I regret that when the substitute resolution was printed,
obviously, the Secretariat overlooked the change from National Assembly
to
Congress, although we had told them that all references to the words
National Assembly there should be changed to Congress because we
have already
shifted to bicameralism. Unfortunately, as it came out, the words National
Assembly still remain. We, therefore, request all Commissioners to please
indicate in their copies that any reference to National Assembly in all the
provisions on the executive department be changed to Congress.
MR. MONSOD: Section 15 has been raised earlier, but I just want to clarify
that even for the first declaration of martial law which has a time fuse of 60
days, the President would need to get the concurrence of the two Houses as
a precondition for the effectivity of martial law.
MR. REGALADO: That is right, and the majority vote of all the Members of
Congress.
MR. MONSOD: . . . and of the Senate.

MR. REGALADO: Of courses the concurrence of both the House of
Representatives and the Senate is needed. We just simply used Congress.
MR. MONSOD: Would the Committee consider proposals along these lines
that would not be too restrictive on the President under these
circumstances? It seems
that this provision is too restrictive as far as the ability of the President to act
during the first 60 days is concerned.
MR. REGALADO: We will entertain that at the proper time, although this has
been discussed by us because in the event of a rebellion or an invasion
which
may not be of such a magnitude as to require the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or the declaration of martial law, the first
sentence takes care of it. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, can right
away order all the Armed Forces to suppress the lawless violence, invasion or
insurrection.
Where, however, the matter has deteriorated to the point, and the situation
has been so aggravated, that the President may have to declare martial law
or
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, that is where the second
clause comes in. And during that intervening period, I assume that the
Members
of Congress are also aware of the situation and will seek to convene precisely
to meet the situation as a second option now. The initial problem of actual
invasion or insurrection, or rather, rebellion is taken care of by the first
sentence. That does not require concurrence of Congress. The President as
Commander-in-Chief, can right away order the entire Armed Forces to meet
the situation.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I be allowed a question on the same
point?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
Line 18 of the same section says: with the concurrence of at least a majority
of all the members of the Congress. Is the Commissioner referring to the
numerical majority of 250 plus 24, or to the majority of both Houses?
MR. SUMULONG: Majority of both Houses.

MR. COLAYCO: Both Houses. I asked so because if we retain this phrase, and
all the members of the Lower House will vote solidly, even if the Senate
votes
against it, the votes of the Lower House will be carried. So, it would be a
majority of both Houses.
MR. SUMULONG: I think that would give the intent in a clearer form both
Houses.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Tan be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: I just have a couple of clarificatory questions.
On page 7, Section 15, line 9 reads: for offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion. What particular offenses are included in this
phrase?
Is subversion, for example, excluded or implied?
MR. REGALADO: Actually, the offenses involved in case of an invasion are
those found in Title 1, Book II of the Revised Penal Code; that is, crimes
against
national security and the law of nations. Among them are treason,
espionage, communication in wartime with the hostile country and giving of
information.
They are all enumerated there.
We now go to subversion. Subversion is the peacetime counterpart of the
treason law because in peacetime, there is no crime of treason. The crime of
treason in peacetime is incubated. If the prohibited acts take place in
wartime, that is treason. We will notice that even the penalties are virtually
the
same for treason and for subversion; that is, prision mayor to death. Only,
treason cannot be committed in peacetime.
SR. TAN: So, subversion is included?
MR. REGALADO: Subversion, if committed in wartime, is actually treason.
SR. TAN: But it is not the definition we used to hear during martial law.
MR. REGALADO: That was Mr. Marcos definition. I am giving the

Commissioner the legal definition.
SR. TAN: Yes. Thank you.
The other question is also on the same section. Would martial law
automatically give the President the power of legislation through decrees?
MR. SUMULONG: We will ask Commissioner Concepcion to answer.
MR. CONCEPCION: It is stated in Section 15:
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts . . .
The Commissioners question is whether martial law decreases or increases
the power of the President?
SR. TAN: Decreases?
MR. CONCEPCION: Not necessarily.
SR. TAN: So, what specific power is necessary before the President can
proclaim martial law?
MR. CONCEPCION: In general, in case of invasion, the President would have
all the powers of a general in the army.
MR. SUMULONG: We ask Commissioner Bernas to answer.
FR. BERNAS: That same question was asked during the meetings of the
Committee: What precisely does martial law add to the power of the
President to call on
the armed forces? The first and second lines in this provision state:
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies . . .
The provision is put there, precisely, to reverse the doctrine of the Supreme
Court. I think it is the case Aquino vs. COMELEC where the Supreme Court
said
that in times of martial law, the President automatically has legislative
power. So these two clauses denied that. A state of martial law does not
suspend
the operation of the Constitution; therefore, it does not suspend the principle
of separation of powers.
The question now is: During martial law, can the President issue decrees?
The answer we gave to that question in the Committee was: During martial
law, the
President may have the powers of a commanding general in a theatre of war.
In actual war when there is fighting in an area, the President as the
commanding
general has the authority to issue orders which have the effect of law but
strictly in a theatre of war, not in the situation we had during the period of
martial law. In other words, there is an effort here to return to the traditional
concept of martial law as it was developed especially in American
jurisprudence, where martial law has reference to the theatre of war.
SR. TAN: Thank you.
That clarifies my questions. I still have a little doubt on Section 18 which was
already mentioned by Commissioners de Castro and Monsod. I notice the
omission of the congressional approval for foreign loans. My dilemma is on
the reason for requiring congressional approval for treaties, while for foreign
loans, we do not have any, as if to say these are not equally crucial. Is the
concurrence of the Monetary Board sufficient?
MR. REGALADO: I have already given my answer to the same question and
Commissioner Villegas has also clarified the participation of the Monetary
Board and
its membership. The purposes of not requiring congressional concurrence
are: First, it would take some time before such concurrence may be obtained
and
there might be an urgent need for the loan or, thereafter, if concurrence is
finally obtained, the offered loan may no longer be available; second, it was
thought that if the congressional concurrence is required, an obstructionist
Congress could prevent the President from contracting foreign loans which
may
be urgently needed especially in case of a national calamity which requires
immediate action.
SR. TAN: Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, point of clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader wants to say something.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, in view of the time, I ask for a suspension of
the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended and we will resume at two-thirty in
the afternoon.
It was 12:19 p.m.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, this Member is now the Acting Floor
Leader.
I request that Commissioner Quesada be recognized.
MR. SUMULONG: May I request the members of the Committee on the
Executive to come forward and join us here.
May I inform the Members of the Commission that the latest copy which we
will use has just been distributed and on the first page, right upper hand
corner,
we will read the following as stated: Substitute Resolution-Adjusted to
Bicameral Legislature. So this will be the copy which will guide our
discussions
from now on.
Thank you.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, honorable members of the Committee on
the Executive, I would like to raise three points for clarification. The first one
is
on page 6, line 8 which reads:
He shall exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be
provided by law, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
MR. REGALADO: Is that on page 6?
MS. QUESADA: Page 6, Section 14, line 8.
MR. REGALADO: That is line 23 here. The Commissioner will please look at
her copy. Is that the one which bears on the upper right hand corner the title:
Substitute Resolution-Adjusted to Bicameral Legislature?
MS. QUESADA: I am sorry, I do not have the amended copy, but this has
something to do with the local governments.
MR. MAAMBONG: In what section?
MS. QUESADA: Sorry, I have a different copy.
MR. MAAMBONG: Can we go by section so that we will not get lost?
MS. QUESADA: Is it going to be by section now?
MR. SUMULONG: Yes. by section.
MR. MAAMBONG: The Commissioner must refer to the correct section so that
we will not get lost.
MS. QUESADA: This is Section 14 already. I do not have any question as
regards the other sections. I just would like to seek clarification about Section
14
but I do not know where it is found in the amended copy.
MR. REGALADO: That is on page 6; Section 14 starts from line 21.
MS. QUESADA: My question: Would this particular section now define the
specific areas for general supervision by the Office of the President over local
governments?
MR. REGALADO: May I answer that, please?
MS. QUESADA: It says here as may be provided by law, but I was
wondering how it would dovetail with the autonomy that we are now trying
to give local
governments.
MR. REGALADO: The entire Section 4 is an exact copy of the 1935
Constitution, Section 10 (1) thereof. The phrase general supervision over all
local
governments is used to distinguish it from control over executive
departments, bureaus and offices. Since 1935, the phrase exercise general
supervision has already had a settled meaning. The powers of the President
over local governments are defined by law as to whether he can cause the
investigation of a lower official of a local government or his suspension but
always subject to law, either a special law or the Administrative Code. If

the Commissioners question is with respect to autonomous governments
and the degree of general supervision thereover, that will have to be
provided by law
because, as we will note, under the 1973 Constitution the autonomous
regions are not considered political or geographical divisions. It is only now
that we
are considering them here. Since I am also a member of the Committee on
Local Governments, I informed the members thereof that the extent of the
general
supervision of the President over this type of local government, meaning the
autonomous region, shall have to be provided for by the incoming
legislature.
MS. QUESADA: I am not really referring to the autonomous regions but I am
talking about the clamor now of local governments to have more autonomy
and more
decentralization of powers. It is perceived that the cause of local autonomy
will suffer some setbacks by adopting this particular clause. Many of the
present ills of our local government system are attributed to presidential
intervention in purely local affairs. This provision will, therefore, strengthen
its hold on local governments.
MR. REGALADO: That was so under the previous regime because we will note
that the last phrase there says: and shall take care that the laws be
faithfully
executed. At that time the laws were promulgated as prepared by one man,
so there was a little emasculation of local autonomy, We hope that our
incoming
legislature will do away with those very restrictive decrees.
Commissioner Bernas will also add some comments.
FR. BERNAS: This phrase as may be provided by law will have to be
adjusted to whatever we approve on the Article on Local Governments. If the
local
governments allow very little leeway for the law to say anything about them,
then the law will be very little.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
The second point I would like to raise will be on an issue that was earlier
presented by Commissioner Tan which has something to do with the
President
contracting or guaranteeing foreign and domestic loans on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence alone of the Monetary
Board
without having to go through Congress. I wonder if the Committee would still
be amenable to amendments on how we could put a check to this particular
right
of the President.
MR. REGALADO: I have given the answer to Commissioner Tan and another
one who asked me this morning. But, of course, we will entertain
amendments at the
proper time.
MS. QUESADA: So the Committee is not entirely closed on the subject?
MR. REGALADO: It is not closed. Incidentally, the Commissioner is requested
to please take note that the Committee has caused the deletion of the
phrase
and domestic on line 14, so this refers only to foreign loans now.
MS. QUESADA: I am really interested in foreign loans that we are contracting,
so maybe at the proper time, we will try to propose some amendments.
The third point is on page 9. Section 20 line 7 which reads:
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
I would like to ask some clarification on the coverage or the scope of these
treaties or international agreements.
MR. REGALADO: The phrase international agreement here was used by the
Committee because, formerly, the provision spoke only of treaties. However,
treaties alone are not the only vehicles for international accord. Later, there
developed in the United States things like executive agreements which did
not require the concurrence of the U.S. Congress, although in the Philippines,
our President entered into an executive agreement with the United States on
the Bell Trade Act but with prior approval of Congress.
There are other agreements in other countries which are called
administrative agreements instead of executive agreements. This kind is
the one existing
between the United States and Japan. The reason for that is simple; they
could not call it an executive agreement because at the time the agreement
was
signed, Emperor Hirohito had been virtually divested of powers because it
was General MacArthur who was running the show. So, they called it an
administrative agreement, which actually was not strictly an executive

agreement.
There are also things like multilateral treaties or international conventions
like the Convention on the Law of the Sea that we have been discussing. So
it was felt that all these international agreements, since they deal with our
external relations, should also require the concurrence of the Senate.
MS. QUESADA: So, this would include conventions like that adopted by the
International Labor Organization (ILO).
MR. REGALADO: The Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Universal
Copyright Convention those are things that we took into account.
MS. QUESADA: So, it would have to be concurred in by Congress. I had to
seek this clarification because in the past regime, there was this organization
trying to work out with the Members of the Assembly to ratify a treaty or a
convention that had been adopted by ILO in which the Philippines was a
signatory. But in the long run, we found out that it needed only the President
to ratify that ILO Convention. I am speaking of ILO Convention 149 which had
something to do with the conditions of life and work of nursing and other
health personnel. So, this should now be covered not merely by a
presidential act
but with the concurrence of Congress.
MR. REGALADO: Under the former regime, there was no counterpart
provision of concurrence by Congress with respect to international
agreements. There was
also none in the 1935 Constitution and the truth is many of us did not know
what were the international agreements being concluded by the President on
his
own authority.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I respectfully request that
Commissioner Foz be recognized.
MR FOZ: I have a few questions on Section 4 regarding the certificates of
canvass.
Lines 15 and 16, page 2, state: . . . upon determination of the authenticity
and due execution of the certificates of canvass. I really do not know if
this was touched upon by Commissioner Nolledo but just the same, let me
ask the question.
How does the Congress the Senate and the House of Representatives in
joint public session determine the authenticity and due execution of the
certificates of canvass?
A corollary question, will it require the testimony or affirmation of the very
persons who executed the certificates?
MR. REGALADO: May we refer this to Commissioner Maambong who
introduced a resolution to that effect and which was adopted by the
Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: We explained early this morning, in answer to the query of
Commissioner Nolledo, that under the present laws, the authenticity and due
execution are determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Commission on Elections by the exact provisions of the Omnibus Election
Code and
by the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court. But the Gentleman will
notice in the formulation of the present section that we inserted the words
IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW because in the last canvassing of votes of
the President and Vice-President before the Batasang Pambansa, there were
so many
objections as to the manner of determination of due execution and
authenticity. So, in future canvassings we will expect that the national
legislature will
promulgate or enact a law where they will set out in formal terms the guide
lines to be followed by the board of tellers of the Congress in the canvass of
votes of the President and the Vice-President. But as I have mentioned
earlier, as of this moment we are guided by the rules and regulations of the
COMELEC, by the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and by the rulings
of the Supreme Court.
MR. FOZ: Under existing provisions of law and the rules of the old Batasan.
how is it determined?
MR. MAAMBONG: There are so many corollary factors in the determination of
the due execution and genuineness of the document. The first thing that the
board
of canvassers or the board of tellers if we call it that will look at is the
certificate of canvass coming from the different provincial board of
canvassers, city board of canvassers, or in the case of Metro Manila, the
district board of canvassers. The first step taken is to look at the document
itself to find out if it is regular on its face, whether it is signed, for example,
by the members of the city, provincial or district board of canvassers,
whether the thumbmarks are there, and more importantly, whether the
words and figures are clearly indicated. With these, the board of tellers will
start
tabulating the votes. But the problem, as I said, is that there are corollary
factors like whether or not the envelope in which the certificate of canvass
was contained is the genuine envelope furnished by the COMELEC, whether
the COMELEC paper seal is affixed on the envelope, whether the certificate
of
canvass has the COMELEC paper seal. These are corollary issues, and in
resolving these issues, the board of canvassers were guided by the
resolutions and
regulations of the COMELEC, the exact provisions of the Omnibus Election
Code and the rulings of the Supreme Court. Just to give an example, in one
ruling
of the Supreme Court where election returns transmitted to the board of
canvassers were contained in jute sacks and not in the proper boxes, the
Supreme
Court said that these are mere formalities; if the election returns do not
contain irregularities on their face, they may be considered in the canvassing
of votes.
MR. FOZ: Is the question of whether signatures appearing on the certificates
are genuine or not also considered?
MR. MAAMBONG: It is considered, in the sense that in the actual canvassing
of votes, the opposition party has a copy of the certificate of canvass being
used by the Speaker and the board of canvassers with the signature
appearing on the copy of the opposition party and the ruling party, then the
Speaker and
the board of tellers can determine whether there is a deviation in the
signatures in the three copies. That is how it is done.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May I go to the next question? This is about the declaration of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on page 7, on
the second to the last paragraph of Section 15. Is it possible to delete the
clause where civil courts are able to function? In the earlier portion of
the same sentence, it says, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts . . . I was just thinking that if this provision states the effects of the
declaration of martial law one of which is that it does not supplant the
functioning of the civil courts I cannot see how civil courts would be
unable
to function even in a state of martial law.
MR. SUMULONG: May we refer that interpellation to Commissioner Bernas?
FR. BERNAS: This phrase was precisely put here because we have clarified
the meaning of martial law; meaning, limiting it to martial law as it has
existed
in the jurisprudence in international law, that it is a law for the theater of
war. In a theater of war, civil courts are unable to function. If in the
actual theater of war civil courts, in fact, are unable to function, then the
military commander is authorized to give jurisdiction even over civilians to
military courts precisely because the civil courts are closed in that area. But
in the general area where the civil courts are opened then in no case can
the military courts be given jurisdiction over civilians. This is in reference to a
theater of war where the civil courts, in fact, are unable to function.
MR. FOZ: It is a state of things brought about by the realities of the situation
in that specified critical area.
FR. BERNAS: That is correct.
MR. FOZ: And it is not something that is brought about by a declaration of
the Commander-in-Chief.
FR. BERNAS: It is not brought about by a declaration of the Commander-inChief. The understanding here is that the phrase nor authorize the
conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians has reference to
the practice under the Marcos regime where military courts were given
jurisdiction over civilians. We say here that we will never allow that except in
areas where civil courts are, in fact, unable to function and it becomes
necessary for some kind of court to function.
The last question on Section 19, page 8 of the revised draft has to do with
the disqualification or disability imposed on the President, the
Vice-President, members of the Cabinet and chiefs of bureaus or offices and
their assistants. First of all, the term assistants, to whom does it refer?
MR. REGALADO: Our understanding of that would be with respect to
members of the Cabinet, then the deputy minister. With respect to chiefs of
bureaus, then
it would be the assistant bureau director. With respect to other governmental
offices, then the one next in line to the head of that office. The word
assistants does not refer to one particular head of an office; it refers to the
assistants of those different heads of offices.
MR. FOZ: So. one assistant for each of those enumerated.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, that is right.
MR. FOZ: This provision would put a mere chief of an office or a mere director
of a bureau and his assistants on the same level as members of the Cabinet
and their assistants, the President and the Vice-president, and would prohibit
them from doing so many things as enumerated here. The philosophy of this
provision, I understand, is to avoid conflict of interest. What are the other
purposes?
MR. REGALADO: They are all enumerated there.
MR. FOZ: Prohibiting them from having any financial interest in any
transaction with the government and from practicing any profession.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, like the prohibition against the practice of a profession.
MR. FOZ: In other words, I think we can sum up the purpose in conflict of
interest.
MR. REGALADO: Not necessarily, because practicing a profession does not
necessarily conflict with their financial interest.
MR. FOZ: Would it be that the reason is to enable them to devote all their
time or most of their time to their offices?
MR. REGALADO: The most desirable trait of any public officer is to give full
attention and devotion to his duties.
MR. FOZ: Has the Committee not considered also the reality that a director of
a bureau or a chief of an office and his assistants do not receive sufficient
remuneration and, therefore, should not be unduly prevented from engaging
in certain activities that would enable them to meet the rising cost of living?
What I am trying to say is that maybe their inclusion in such a provision
prohibiting them from engaging, for instance, in the practice of their
profession which would not after all conflict with the functions of their office
and thus, being placed on the same level as the President,
Vice-President and members of the Cabinet and their assistants would be
quite harsh. After all, they are not vested with vast powers. So, the evil
sought
to be prevented in the case of the President, the Vice-President and
members of the Cabinet is perhaps not present. So, in their case, the
provisions of
the Anti-Graft Law would be sufficient to make sure that there is no conflict
of interest whatsoever in the discharge of their duties and in whatever
activities they may engage in on the side, private in nature but completely
legal and moral, which would sustain themselves and their family.
MR. REGALADO: In the first place, we have stated that the purpose here is
not only conflict of interest but to enable them to give full-time attention to
their duties. It is assumed that when they sought appointment to this office.
they were aware that there are limitations in the Constitution.
The mere fact that bureau directors are not on the level of the President is
not a correct stratification because whether one is a bureau director, a
deputy or a minister, the same devotion to duty is required.
If we say that we have to be realistic considering the rising cost of living,
aside from the low salaries they are receiving, this can be remedied by
increasing their compensation if the government can afford it or by their
engaging in other activities not contrary to these specific disqualifications.
Some of them teach to augment their income; that is why we pointed out to
Commissioner de Castro that teaching is not a practice of a profession. In
other
words, they can engage in any other revenue-producing, income-producing
activity legitimate in nature provided it does not conflict with the objective
sought in this section.
MR. FOZ: But as the provision is worded there is practically no other activity
from which they would derive additional income because the provision
prohibits one to practice any profession, participate directly or indirectly in
any business. I cannot see any other activity from which a lowly chief of
office getting, let us say, P1,500 a month with a family of five can possibly
derive income that would sustain himself and his family.
MR. REGALADO: This does not preclude the members of their families from
engaging in business. It is a personal disqualification to insure full-time
attention to duties.
MR. FOZ: What will happen here is that there will be circumventions of the
prohibition in view of realities.
MR. REGALADO: It is not circumvention because it is not prohibited.
MR. FOZ: Yes, but there will be circumvention somewhere because the
prohibition will be against the harsh realities of modern living now. It is very
difficult to comply with . . .
MR. REGALADO: If it is just a question of circumvention, we live in a world of

men and not of angels.
MR. FOZ: The provision has a clause which states: hold any other office or
employment. Does this refer to a private office or a public office?
MR. REGALADO: There is a law prohibiting holding two public offices at the
same time; but primarily, this is directed against the holding of a private
office.
MR. FOZ: Does the Committee recall of any existing Provision of law or of the
Constitution which prohibits an employee from holding another government
office?
MR. REGALADO: There is the rule on incompatibility of duties of public
officers.
MR. FOZ: But if there is no incompatibility, a government official or employee
can hold another government office.
MR. REGALADO: There are certain prohibited offices; the prohibitions entail
that they cannot hold two offices at the same time.
MR. FOZ: The last question is on the last page, page 9, about the spouse and
relatives of the President. It says:
or
A relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree would
include a first cousin, am I correct?
MR. REGALADO: No, Madam President, that would be within the fourth civil
degree.
MR. FOZ: So, who among the relatives, for instance, would come within the
third civil degree?
MR. REGALADO: The brother, the sister, and the niece or the nephew,
according to the rules of civil law.
MR. FOZ: The Committee thinks, therefore, that this is sufficient prohibition
insofar as preventing the President from appointing his relatives to
government offices, is that correct?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President. Actually I was for following the
standard rule against nepotism up to the fourth civil degree, which the
Gentleman will
notice is a standard norm in most statute books. However, the Committee
overruled me by limiting it to the third civil degree.
MR. FOZ: So, the Committee thinks that if it is within the fourth civil degree,
it would be a harsh prohibition.
MR. REGALADO: Because there might be a first cousin who is competent and
acceptable to the people.
MR. FOZ: But in the same manner, a brother of the President might also be
as competent.
MR. REGALADO: We have to draw a line somewhere. Why is it that the age of
majority is 21 years and not 20 or 22?
MR. FOZ: Would the Committee consider an amendment to this provision.
that would include government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries?
MR. REGALADO: That is on line 32 of page 8 up to the first word of line 1 on
page 9. We will entertain any proposed amendment with its justification.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I have a few questions.
My first question has reference to Section 8 on page 3, starting with line 28,
which reads:
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice-President during the
term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President
from among the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members
of both
Houses of Congress.
My question is, in view of the fact that the Vice-President is elected by the
whole country, is it not logical that the nomination or choice of his
successor be limited to the Members of the Senate who are also elected
nationally?
MR. REGALADO: We took this from the Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States which, as I have mentioned this morning,
was ratified
on February 10, 1967. It was stated in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment that the
Senate and the House of Representatives should have a say. For that
matter,
President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford upon the recommendation of the
House. Ford was then the Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
So, we felt that the President should be given the freedom of choice not only
of the legislators whom he may wish to appoint and regardless of the House
to
which he belongs.
MR. RODRIGO: Of course, the Committee realizes that there is a difference
between the Senate of the United States and the Senate proposed in our
Constitution.
MR. REGALADO: That is true, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Our Senators are elected by the whole country like the VicePresident, while in the United States, two Senators are elected by every
state.
MR. REGALADO: We will entertain amendments at the proper time.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
My next question has reference to Section 11, line 12, which states:
Whenever a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit to the
their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers
and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no
inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office . . .
In the first paragraph, the Vice-President takes over. In the second
paragraph, after the President transmits his message, the President takes
over unless
a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office.
What happens then?
MR. REGALADO: Then the next sentence says: Thereupon, the Congress
shall decide the issue.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but while Congress is deciding the issue, who takes over?
Does the President continue or does the Vice-President take over?
MR. REGALADO: The President continues; he reassumes . . .
MR. RODRIGO: No, not reassume because at this stage, he is already the
one holding office. Before this, the first stage is when majority of the Cabinet
members send their message to the Senate President and to the Speaker.
MR. RODRIGO: After that, the Vice-President takes over. Then, the second
stage is: the President sends a message. He says, No, I am all right. I jog
every
morning.
MR. REGALADO: He shall resume the powers and duties of the office.
MR. RODRIGO: So, he assumes the powers. Then the Cabinet again sends a
message, No, he is sick.
MR. REGALADO: In the meantime, the President continues. In other words, he
shall resume powers and duties and shall continue to do so unless a majority
of
the Cabinet members transmit a written declaration and until Congress
decides on the issue.
MR. RODRIGO: Why is it then that at the end of the paragraph on pages 5
and 6, it is stated. and I quote:
If the Congress . . within twenty-one days after it is required to assemble,
determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress that the President
is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President
shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President . . .
This means that the Vice-President is the one in office. Then the provision
continues: . . . otherwise the President shall resume the powers and duties
of
his office. This means he was not the one holding the office.
MR. REGALADO: That can be replaced with the word continue. The VicePresident shall then discharge the same as acting President. That is the
purpose.
MR. RODRIGO: What is the intention of the Committee? Let us go over it
again. The first step is when the Cabinet sends the message.
MR. REGALADO: No, the very first step is when the President himself
informs . . .
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, that is the first step. There is no controversy there. Then
the Cabinet sends the message; the Vice-President takes over. The President
sends the message and he takes over. The Cabinet again sends the
message. Does the President continue?
MR. REGALADO: When the Cabinet sends the message, the President in the
meantime shall continue while Congress decides the issue.
MR. RODRIGO: So, that is the intention?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President. If the Congress decides in favor of
the Vice-President, then the Vice-President shall take over to discharge the
duties.
MR. RODRIGO: On page 5, lines 21 to 23. it is stated:
. . . unless a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmits within five
days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration . . .
If the five days elapsed, what happens? Can the Cabinet still send the
message?
MR. REGALADO: If the Cabinet members do not question the certification of
the President that he is no longer unable, that means they agree with him.
MR. RODRIGO: But let us say that it takes the Cabinet six days to find out if
the President is telling the truth or not, so on the sixth day they transmit
their message.
MR. REGALADO: They should act within the period. In the Twenty-Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is four days. I suggested five
days
because we do not have the same transportation and communication
facilities.
MR. RODRIGO: Does this mean to say that after the lapse of five days, the
Cabinet may no longer send the message?
MR. REGALADO: In other words, the Cabinet impliedly acquiesces with the
Presidents declaration.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us say the Cabinet not only implies but agrees that the
President is capable. The five days lapsed. Then after 15 days the President
gets
seriously ill; may the Cabinet again send a message?
MR. REGALADO: Then we start the process all over again.
MR. RODRIGO: Even after the lapse of five days?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, because this is a new supervening and subsequent fact.
MR. RODRIGO: Why place the five-day limit? That can be confusing. Let us
say on the seventh day, there was a relapse. So, the five-day period had
already
elapsed. May the Cabinet still send a message so the Vice-President can take
over?
MR. REGALADO: The process starts all over again because there was that
supervening fact that the President was capable. So, why should we deprive
him of
his office?
MR. RODRIGO: In spite of the fact that the five-day period had lapsed?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, because that was the five-day period within which they
should have objected to the Presidents declaration.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: And since they did not object thereto, they agreed that he
was already capable, as in fact he was capable. So, in the meantime, they
could
not deprive him of the power to discharge the functions of his duties. But
when on the seventh or eighth day the President gets sick, in other words he
is
really unable to discharge his duties, then finding that he is unable to
discharge his duties they can again ask for the declaration and transmit it to
the
Speaker and the Senate President.
MR. RODRIGO: And nobody can say that they cannot send the declaration
anymore because five days have lapsed.
MR. REGALADO: No, it is not so.
MR. RODRIGO: Is it necessary to provide this period of five days which can
lead to confusion?
FR. BERNAS: If they give the declaration within the five-day period, then their
message is not automatically effective: it has to be reviewed by the
Congress.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: But if they give it after the five-day period because there is a
new ailment, then we start the process again and the Vice-President can take
over right away.
MR. RODRIGO: So, if the Cabinet want the Vice- President to take over
immediately, they might as well allow the five days to lapse and start all over
again
on the seventh day. That can be done.
FR. BERNAS: It can be done, as we can see although we hope this will not
happen.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I have a few questions for the Committee, Madam President.
The first one is on Section 4, page 2, lines 5 and 6. We have here a substitute
resolution which was already adopted. I am wondering whether the
Committee took account of the approved amendment that there should be
no reelection
whatsoever.
MR. REGALADO: Is the Commissioner referring to. . .

BISHOP BACANI: He shall be disqualified from immediate reelection.
MR. REGALADO: This morning the Committee announced that that provision
should be considered deleted because of the proceedings the other day in
the
Legislative Committee.
MR. REGALADO: The word immediate should be deleted because that was
placed before we decided on its elimination the other day.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
Let us go to Section 15, page 7, lines 4 to 8. The provision states:
The Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, or extend the
same if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
So, it will be the Senate which extends the suspension of the writ, while it is
the President who declares it with the concurrence of the Congress. Suppose
the President does not agree with the extension, what happens?
MR. REGALADO: Incidentally, we should first go to the basic premise on line
2. This morning Commissioner Colayco pointed out what appeared to be an
oversight. The lines should read: . . . with the concurrence of at least a
majority of all the members of EACH HOUSE OF CONGRESS. That is the way
it
should be worded.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. My question is. suppose they decide to extend the
suspension of the writ?
MR. REGALADO: Commissioner Bernas would like to answer that.
FR. BERNAS: It has no effect because the imposition of martial law means
presidential assumption of extraordinary powers. So, if he does not want to
assume
the extraordinary powers, it has no effect.
Finally, Section 19 on page 9, lines 3 to 6, states:
or
I remember that the Article on the Civil Service Commission provides for
exceptions in the case of policy determining, highly technical or primarily
confidential positions. Does the Gentleman not want to provide here for the
same exceptions with respect to the President so that the President will have
more leeway?
MR. REGALADO: We feel that the powers of the Civil Service Commission
would not be at par with the powers vested in the President. We would like to
be a
little bit more strict because of the vast cornucopia of powers of the
President.
BISHOP BACANI: But suppose it is only the head of an office, would the
Gentleman accept a greater leniency in that regard?
MR. REGALADO: In the first place, as Commissioner Bernas has just noted,
we cannot conceive of the position of minister, deputy minister, or head of a
bureau or office that is primarily confidential. The very nature of the position
shows that it is not primarily confidential.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Villacorta
be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I ask the Committee some
questions?
The first sentence of Section 5, page 2, provides:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of his term, the President-elect shall
have died, the Vice-President-elect shall become President.
My question refers to the situation in which the President-elect is
incapacitated and cannot assume office at the time fixed for the beginning of
his term.
Shall the Vice-President-elect merely assume office until the President-elect
is able to assume office and qualify, or will the Vice-President-elect become
President? In the latter case, would it be possible to amend this section by
inserting on line 27 after the word died and before the comma (,) the
words
OR INCAPACITATED TO ASSUME OFFICE?
MR. REGALADO: That presupposes that the President-elect shall have died
which, in a manner of speaking, is a permanent incapacity and, therefore,
the
Vice-President-elect shall become President. But if the President-elect is
merely temporarily incapacitated, that is without prejudice to his recovery, of
course, then the Vice-President may, in the meantime, act as President.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, but a President-elect can be permanently
incapacitated without having died.
MR. MAAMBONG: Regarding the incapacity of the President, I think we should
make it clear considering that the provision the Gentleman is referring to is
Section 5.
MR. VILLACORTA: That is right.
MR. MAAMBONG: Section 5 should be read together with Section 9. But just
for the sake of clarity, there are several points to consider when it comes to
election. The first point of reference, of course, is the election by the people.
The second point of reference would be the canvass of the votes and
proclamation. The third point of reference would be the qualification wherein
the person who has been proclaimed takes his oath. And the fourth point of
reference will be the beginning of the term which is the assumption of office.
If the Gentleman will go over the provision of Section 5 and Section 9,
whenever the President is permanently disabled, either before he is
proclaimed or
even after he has qualified and has begun his term of office, if it is a
permanent disability or death, the rule of thumb is always that the VicePresident
becomes President. So, in all these cases. whether he has been proclaimed,
he has taken his oath, or he has actually assumed office, as long as the
incapacity is permanent or it is outright death, the Vice-President becomes
President. The only instance where the Vice-President shall act as President
is
in the case where the President is not elected; he is elected but not
proclaimed; he is proclaimed but he fails to qualify, or he qualifies but did not
assume office. In all these instances, the Vice-President shall only act as
President for the simple reason that there is always the possibility that the
President who has been elected but has not yet been proclaimed might be
proclaimed; or if he has been proclaimed but has not yet qualified, might
qualify;
or if he has qualified but has not yet assumed office, will assume office. So,
in these instances, naturally, the Vice-President will act as President.
I hope that is clear, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Perhaps at the proper time, we may consider a possible
amendment to line 27 wherein the President died or has been definitively
established
to be permanently incapacitated.
MR. VILLACORTA: So, perhaps we could present that as an amendment,
Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Incidentally, there is the possibility that we will realign the
sections Sections 5 and 9 so that we will not be confused. The
Gentleman
will notice that I mention Section 9 in relation to Section 5. These sections
should be sequential in the sense that Section 9 should actually follow
Section 5. We will do that later on.
MR. REGALADO: That is what happens when we try to beat the deadline, like
newspapermen.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
I am not sure whether Commissioner Suarez has expressed his point. On
page 2, the fourth paragraph of Section 4 provides:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
Vice-President.
May I seek clarification as to whether or not the matter of determining the
outcome of the contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of
the President or Vice-President is purely a political matter and, therefore,
should not be left entirely to the judiciary. Will the above-quoted provision
not impinge on the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive
and the judicial departments of the government?
MR. REGALADO: No, I really do not feel that would be a problem. This is a
new provision incidentally. It was not in the 1935 Constitution nor in the 1973
Constitution.
MR. REGALADO: We feel that it will not be an intrusion into the separation of
powers guaranteed to the judiciary because this is strictly an adversarial
and judicial proceeding.
MR. VILLACORTA: May I know the rationale of the Committee because this
supersedes Republic Act 7950 which provides for the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, this is necessary. Election contests are, by their
nature, judicial. Therefore, they are cognizable only by courts. If, for
instance, we did not have a constitutional provision on an electoral tribunal
for the Senate or an electoral tribunal for the House, normally, as composed,
that cannot be given jurisdiction over contests.
So, the background of this is really the case of Roxas vs. Lopez. The
Gentleman will remember that in that election, Lopez was declared winner.
He filed a
protest before the Supreme Court because there was a republic act which
created the Supreme Court as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The
question in
this case was whether new powers could be given the Supreme Court by law.
In effect, the conflict was actually whether there was an attempt to create
two
Supreme Courts and the answer of the Supreme Court was: No, this did not
involve the creation of two Supreme Courts, but precisely we are giving new
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, as it is allowed by the Constitution.
Congress may allocate various jurisdictions.
Before the passage of that republic act, in case there was any contest
between two presidential candidates or two vice-presidential candidates, no
one had
jurisdiction over it. So, it became necessary to create a Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. What we have done is to constitutionalize what was statutory but
it is not an infringement on the separation of powers because the power
being given to the Supreme Court here is a judicial power.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
On page 6, Section 14 says: The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus and offices. I know this was the wording in
both
the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions. In the 1973 Constitution, there were
two conflicting provisions. Article IX, Section 9 says that the Prime Minister
shall have supervision over all ministries, while Article VII, Section 10 says
that the President shall have control of the ministries. My question has to
do with the word control. Our experience in the past was that the then
President had absolute control over the actions and decisions of people in
the
executive departments bureaus and offices. Even their extra-official actions
were infringed upon by the then President. I wonder if the Committee would
consider using another term because control smacks of tyrannical control.
Could we use a softer term or a more objective term such as ADMINISTER or
SUPERVISE? The President shall ADMINISTER all the executive
departments.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, this is based on the principle that under a
presidential form of government, there is only one executive and it is the
President. And the power of control in jurisprudence is acquired very
definitely. It means the authority of a superior to substitute his judgment for
the
judgment of an inferior. It has reference only to the exercise of judgment. It
has nothing to do with discipline but just the exercise of discretion. The
discretion of the superior who has power of control can always be substituted
for that exercise of jurisdiction of the inferior. This is to be
distinguished from the power of general supervision which is nothing more
than the power to see to it that the inferior follows the law. The power of
general supervision does not allow the superior to substitute his judgment.
Just to give an example, there is a power of general supervision over local
governments. Let us suppose now that the local legislative body passes a
law. The President does not like it. Can he substitute his judgment for the
judgment of the local government? No. All he can do is say: Well, you did
not do it according to law and you have to do something about it. But if
everything was done according to law, he cannot substitute his judgment for
that of the inferior. But in the case of those covered by the first sentence
they all belong to the executive department and under the principle that
there is only one executive, this executive has the final say on the exercise of
judgment.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you, Madam President.
Just two more short questions. Section IS, lines 26 to 28, states:
forces . . .
I wonder if it would be better to transfer the phrase whenever it becomes
necessary after the phrase armed forces, so that it would read: The
President shall be the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the
Philippines and HE MAY CALL OUT SUCH ARMED FORCES WHENEVER IT
BECOMES NECESSARY to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. My point here is
that the calling out of the Armed Forces will be limited only to the
necessity of preventing or suppressing lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
As it is situated now, the phrase whenever it becomes necessary becomes
too discretionary on the part of the President. And we know that in the past,
it had been abused because the perception and judgment as to necessity
was
completely left to the discretion of the President. Whereas if it is placed in
the manner that I am suggesting, the necessity would only pertain to
suppression and prevention of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. May I
know the reaction of the Committee to that observation?
MR. REGALADO: We feel that substantially there would be no difference
because that is the qualificative basis for his calling out the Armed Forces. It
is,
of course, a matter of style and it does not violate the rules on syntax, but
the idea is still there. These are taken from the provisions of the 1935
Constitution, Section 10 (2) and also the 1973 Constitution, as amended,
under Section 11 thereof.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see. Therefore, the Committee does not see any
difference wherever the phrase whenever it becomes necessary is placed.
FR. BERNAS: It will not make any difference. I may add that there is a
graduated power of the President as Commander-in-Chief. First, he can call
out such
Armed Forces as may be necessary to suppress lawless violence; then he can
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; then he can impose
martial
law. This is a graduated sequence.
When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, his judgment is subject to review. We
are
making it subject to review by the Supreme Court and subject to concurrence
by the National Assembly. But when he exercises this lesser power of calling
on
the Armed Forces, when he says it is necessary, it is my opinion that his
judgment cannot be reviewed by anybody.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see. Thank you, Madam President.
One last question, Madam President. On page 9, Section 19, lines 3 to 4
states: The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree of the President . . . Could we add OR THE VICE-PRESIDENT
since the Vice-President could take over the position of the President? Should
we
not apply this prohibition to the Vice-President?
MR. REGALADO: We considered that in the Committee and we felt that it
should not apply to the Vice-President because he has no appointing power
unless of
course, he is acting as President. But then, there are safeguards insofar as an
acting President, in the person of the Vice-President, is concerned.
MR. VILLACORTA: It is true that the Vice-President has no appointing power,
but does the Gentleman not think that the President should be prevented
from
appointing relatives of his or her Vice-President as minister, deputy minister
or as bureau head?
MR. REGALADO: We could possibly consider that but I think it would be
extending the ban a little too far, and depriving the country of services of
people
who by the accident of relationship, happen to be within the restricted ambit.
MR. VILLACORTA: I was just anticipating the possibility that this VicePresident might be President one day, and the same argument that the
Gentleman
posited in defense of this prohibition as applied to the President should
probably also apply to the Vice-President who could be a President.
Nonetheless,
thank you very much.
MR. REGALADO: We will consider that at the proper time, but we will try to
find a remedy to qualm the Gentlemans apprehensions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Garcia be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Chair does that, we wish to acknowledge the
presence in the gallery of high school students from Maryknoll, and also the
students
of a political science class of the University of the Philippines.
Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Madam President.
I would simply like to make two brief comments regarding Sections 18 and
20. I think we have here two instances where we can democratize the
exercise of
political power by the President with regard to the responsibility of the

President to contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic,
and
also the right of the President to make effective international agreements or
treaties. Has the Committee considered the possibility of creating a
mechanism for popular consultations with regard to this specific power to
contract foreign loans and also make effective international agreements? Our
experience in the past shows that, for example, in the friendship and amity
treaty with Japan which included foreign loans, the social costs were passed
on
to the greater number when the IMF required austerity measures. So, very
often, when the social costs are passed on to the majority, they do not have
a way
of responding to this order of priorities; they would consider that those loans
are not to their benefit. But if a system of popular consultation were
instituted, it would in fact help to democratize the power of the President in
this regard. I would like to ask the Gentleman whether it has been discussed
in the Committee.
MR. REGALADO: It has not been discussed but we will entertain a proposal, a
configuration of that system of popular consultation.
MR. GARCIA: Yes. With regard to Sections 18 and 20, I was thinking of
providing a direct and regular mechanism of popular consultation so that the
people
can have an input in the decision-making regarding these two very critical
issues of foreign loans and international agreements.
MR. REGALADO: How would it be done? Would it be nationwide in the nature
of a referendum?
MR. GARCIA: I thought the presidential visits to Cagayan de Oro or Davao
were significant in that the President was actually face to face with the
people,
listening to their different ideas. Secondly, after a wide consultation, perhaps
some kind of referendum could also be instituted. So, I think some thought
could be given to this.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, we are open to suggestions. But we cannot conceive of
a mechanism whereby this can be institutionalized. For instance, we may,
over a
period of one year, have to seek five foreign loans which were earlier
intended to be taken in one sitting. We could have a referendum or
something.
MR. GARCIA: I was thinking of a general direction. The direct experience I had
which led me to think along this line was the public consultation in Legaspi
where the fishermen spoke against the treaty of friendship with Japan. I
remember also in Capiz where the fishermen told us that trawlers were
coming in
and they felt that if they had a say regarding the friendship treaty, these
rights of fishermen regarding aquatic reforms could have benefited them
largely.
MR. REGALADO: I am completely sympathetic to the objective because after
all it would be the people who will ultimately have to pay for these loans. But
does the Gentleman not think that if the matter were brought directly to the
attention of the Cabinet minister concerned, that could also eventually end in
the Office of the President, properly articulated with the proper in-depth
research and the corresponding statistical support?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, I think that would be a very good contribution. But I would
still feel that if we could institutionalize a mechanism of popular
consultation, it would genuinely democratize the exercise of political power
by the Chief Executive. I think it will provide a built-in mechanism to ensure
that presidential prerogatives are constantly within the constraints of public
good.
FR. BERNAS: Correct me if I am wrong, the friendship treaty. I guess, was
under President Marcos during the martial law period.
MR. GARCIA: Exactly.
FR. BERNAS: And it was entered into without the safeguards we have here.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, that is it.
FR. BERNAS: Let us consider that a treaty is an international agreement and
shall not be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of
all the members of the legislature. That by itself is a safeguard. This may be
modified since the House of Representatives is the more popular body, and
one way of institutionalizing it is to give a role to the House of
Representatives which is more directly in touch with the people.
MR. GARCIA: I think that would be a good safeguard. But still I would
subscribe for a far more direct mechanism of popular consultation which I
think is
built-in in the Office of the President. We will make the President keep in
touch far more regularly and directly. The other point I wanted to make is
regarding the Monetary Board. It was mentioned by Commissioner Villegas in
his earlier remark regarding this question of contracting foreign loans that
the
Monetary Board will be more and more in the hands of the private sector
with the participation of private interest. I consider important for the
Monetary
Board the character of independence as well as a social character in order to
safeguard public interest. I was wondering whether the Committee on the
National Economy and Patrimony, when they were suggesting private
interest to be part of the Monetary Board, had in mind who would compose
the Board,
together with presidential appointments like the Minister of Finance and the
Central Bank Governor.
MR. REGALADO: We can ask Commissioner Villegas to explain to us the
present membership.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the situation can still be worked out by the
legislature so we are leaving it up to the legislature. But when we talk about
private interest, they could be either full-time members of the Board taken
from the private sector and the private sector can mean the business sector,
labor sector, private foundations so anything non-governmental. It could
be from private volunteer organizations. During the transition, the members
from
the private sector could be the majority chosen from any one of these
sectors referred to and qualified as private. But eventually the ideal situation
would be for all of them to really be full-time members of the Board, and the
moment they are full-time, they become government officials. That is going
to
be a problem that the legislature will have to work on. As I said, in countries
like the United States, the Federal Reserve System is completely
independent of the President and the executive branch, but they are full-time
officials of the government. So that is also one way of keeping its
independence to have a board made up of full-time members chosen in a
way that will be designated by the legislature.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask one question of Commissioner Villegas.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia has still the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia may proceed.

MR. GARCIA: My concern in asking the question is simply this, that I did not
wish to confine private interest to banking interests alone.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, it is very clear.
MR. GARCIA: In other words, when we say that it is private, I see the
importance of the independent character of the board, but at the same time
it must
have its social character and, finally, its public dimension, so that if we can
insure that it can be opened to the diverse social sectors of our society,
especially those who compose the majority, then I believe that that will
protect the interest we wish to see protected.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, it always has to be stressed that the word private is not
synonymous with business. Private is anything non-governmental.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Garcia through with the Committee or does
he still have other questions?
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, I am not really pleased with the way it was
presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Please continue the interpellation.
MR. GARCIA: With regard to foreign loans, I hope we can be assured that the
Monetary Board will exercise enough independence, and be guardians of
public
interests so that no longer will we have governments that will contract loans
regardless of social costs. The costs that are imposed, especially upon
negotiation with the IMF for austerity measures that have to be shouldered
by the great majority, will not benefit that social sector. So, I am looking for
mechanisms that will protect that social group. That is simply the concern I
wanted to express before the Committee.
MR. DE CASTRO: Will the honorable Commissioner Villegas answer just one
question?
MR. VILLEGAS: Gladly, Madam President.

Who appoints the members of the private sector to the Monetary Board?
MR. VILLEGAS: We have not identified the mechanism; we will leave it up to
the legislature.
MR. DE CASTRO: Does the Gentleman mean that the Congress will be the
one to appoint them?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, Congress will pass a law specifying how they will be
appointed. We did not want to go into the mechanics of the appointment.
MR. DE CASTRO: This is precisely my intent, Madam President, and I have a
resolution providing that foreign loans should bear the concurrence of
Congress
so that there will be a check and balance on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that question can be asked of the Committee when the
time of Commissioner de Castro comes up.
Are there other speakers in the list?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we have six more interpellators;
thereafter we will close the period of interpellations.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the next speaker.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner de los
Reyes be recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I ask some questions of the
Committee.
One of the significant changes in Section 15 is that phrase imminent danger
thereof was deleted, including the word insurrection. I can understand the
reason for the deletion of insurrection since the word is of Spanish origin
and no longer applies, but I would like to be clarified as to the reason for
the deletion of the phrase or imminent danger thereof in justifying the
imposition of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.
MR. REGALADO: The Committee considered that, and the Gentleman will
recall that in the 1935 Constitution the phrase imminent danger thereof
did not
appear in the Bill of Rights. However, the framers of the 1973 Constitution
wanted to have a strong President and they added the phrase imminent
danger
thereof in the provisions on the Commander-in Chief which in turn was
taken, I think, from the Philippine Bill of 1902 which granted that power to
the
then military governor. I suppose they considered the insurrectos a serious
threat to their attempt to colonize the Philippines, but recent events have
shown that the phrase imminent danger thereof is fraught with possibilities
of abuse. Where the President states that there is an imminent danger of
rebellion, it appears that he would have to rely on his word on that because
he could always say that this is the military intelligence report. The
military intelligence report consists of generally classified documents which,
even with the Supreme Court trying to look into their factual basis under
the present proposed Constitution, can still be thwarted because the
Supreme Court cannot just disregard a so-called classified, highly reliable
intelligence report coming from different intelligence agencies which for all
we know could easily be contrived in the hands of a scheming President. So,
in choosing between two evils, we felt that this was the lesser evil the
elimination of the phrase imminent danger thereof.
FR. BERNAS: Let me just add that when we only have imminent danger, the
matter can be handled by the first sentence: The President . . . may call out
such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
So we feel that that is sufficient for handling imminent danger.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So actually, if a President feels that there is imminent
danger of invasion or rebellion, instead of imposing martial law or
suspending
the writ of habeas corpus, he must necessarily have to call the Armed Forces
of the Philippines as their Commander-in-Chief. Is that the idea?
MR. REGALADO: That does not require any concurrence by the legislature nor
is it subject to judicial review.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But is not the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus and the imposition of martial law more of the preparatory
steps
before the President should call the Armed Forces of the Philippines as
Commander-in-Chief? In other words, before calling the Armed Forces of the
Philippines should he not take the preparatory step of suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or imposing martial law?
MR. REGALADO: As a matter of fact, the former President outlined the steps
and we have put them here as follows: (1) When it is only imminent danger,
although, of course, he did not use that term, he can already call out the
Armed Forces just to prevent or suppress violence; (2) if the situation has
worsened and there is a need for stronger measures, then aside from merely
calling out the Armed Forces he goes into the suspension of the privilege of
the
writ; (3) but if both measures calling out the Armed Forces and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ still prove unavailing in the face of
developments and exacerbated situation, this time he goes to the ultimate
which would be martial law.
MR. DE LOS REYES: As I see it now, the Committee envisions actual rebellion
and no longer imminent rebellion. Does the Committee mean that there
should be
actual shooting or actual attack on the legislature or Malacaang, for
example? Let us take for example a contemporary event this Manila Hotel
incident
everybody knows what happened. Would the Committee consider that an
actual act of rebellion?
MR. REGALADO: If we consider the definition of rebellion under Articles 134
and 135 of the Revised Penal Code, that presupposes an actual assemblage
of men
in an armed public uprising for the purposes mentioned in Article 134 and by
the means employed under Article 135. I am not trying to pose as an expert
about this rebellion that took place in the Manila Hotel, because what I know
about it is what I only read in the papers. I do not know whether we can
consider that there was really an armed public uprising. Frankly, I have my
doubts on that because we were not privy to the investigations conducted
there.
Commissioner Bernas would like to add something.
FR. BERNAS: Besides, it is not enough that there is actual rebellion. Even if
we will suppose for instance that the Manila Hotel incident was an actual
rebellion, that by itself would not justify the imposition of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ because the Constitution further
says: when the public safety requires it. So, even if there is a rebellion but
the rebellion can be handled and public safety can be protected without
imposing martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ, the President
need not. Therefore, even if we consider that a rebellion, clearly, it was
something which did not call for imposition of martial law.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I ask that question because I think modern rebellion can
be carried out nowadays in a more sophisticated manner because of the
advance of
technology, mass media and others. Let us consider this for example: There
is an obvious synchronized or orchestrated strike in all industrial firms, then
there is a strike of drivers so that employees and students cannot attend
school nor go to their places of work, practically paralyzing the government.
Then in some remote barrios, there are ambushes by so-called subversives,
so that the scene is that there is an orchestrated attempt to destabilize the
government and ultimately supplant the constitutional government.
Would the Committee call that an actual rebellion, or is it an imminent
rebellion?
MR. REGALADO: At the early stages where there was just an attempt to
paralyze the government or some sporadic incidents in other areas but
without armed
public uprising, that would only amount to sedition under Article 138, or it
can only be considered a tumultuous disturbance.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The public uprisings are not concentrated in one place
which used to be the concept of rebellion before.
MR. REGALADO: No.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But the public uprisings consist of isolated attacks in
several places for example in one camp here; another in the province of
Quezon;
and then in another camp in Laguna; no attack in Malacaang but there is
complete paralysis of the industry in the whole country. If we place these
things together the impression is clear that there is an attempt to
destabilize the government in order to supplant it with a new government.
MR. REGALADO: It becomes a matter of factual appreciation and evaluation.
The magnitude is to be taken into account when we talk about tumultuous
disturbance, to sedition, then graduating to rebellion. All these things are
variances of magnitude and scope. So, the President determines, based on
the
circumstances, if there is presence of a rebellion.
MR. DE LOS REYES: With the concurrence of Congress.
MR. REGALADO: And another is, if there is publicity involved, not only the
isolated situations. If they conclude that there is really an armed public
uprising although not all over the country, not only to destabilize but to
overthrow the government, that would already be considered within the
ambit of
rebellion. If the President considers it, it is not yet necessary to suspend the
privilege of the writ. It is not necessary to declare martial law because

he can still resort to the lesser remedy of just calling out the Armed Forces
for the purpose of preventing or suppressing lawlessness or rebellion.
MR. DE LOS REYES: And then here is the qualifying phrase: with the
concurrence of at least a majority of all the Members of the National
Assembly. I
suppose the Members of the National Assembly would hold session in the
place where they should hold it, like the Batasang Pambansa. But it could be
a very
real possibility that the Batasang Pambansa will be blocked by all these
demonstrators. If they will not allow any of the Members of the Congress to
go to
the Batasan, how can we secure the concurrence of Congress?
MR. REGALADO: Let me point out that the Committee has already corrected
this. Line 2 should now read: the members of EACH HOUSE of the Congress
With respect to the statement of the Gentleman regarding the Batasan being
blockaded by people, I am reminded of a question asked of me by Justice
Concepcion when I was in the fourth year political law review. He said, You
are talking about Congress. where is Congress? So I said. The legislative
building over there. Suppose, he said, that is destroyed by fire,
earthquake or any other calamity, where is Congress? Then I realized that
when I
thought I knew, I did not really know because the Congress as projected here
is any place wherein the Members of the House of Representatives and the
Senate lawfully congregate, assemble, deliberate and hold sessions, whether
it is in the Batasan building or under a grove of mango trees.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Anywhere, in other words. I would like to direct this last
question to Commissioner Maambong.
Commissioner Maambong stated earlier that it is still the ministerial duty of
the National Assembly to canvass the votes and examine the certificate of
canvass. In other words, the National Assembly has no alternative but to
proceed with the certificate of canvass without necessarily being bound by
the
alleged authenticity of the canvass. Is that correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is correct. That is what I said.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The Commissioner also said upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law. The
phrase
manner provided by law does not only refer to statutory law, but to
jurisprudence; in other words, stare decisis or decisions of the Supreme
Court on the
matter. Is that correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is correct.
Although I have other points, I will just limit my points to these two and
reserve other matters during the presentation of amendments.
MR. MONSOD: May I just ask one follow-up question with respect to the
interpellation of Commissioner de los Reyes?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. MONSOD: If I heard Commissioner de los Reyes right, he mentioned that
it is a ministerial right of Congress to canvass the presidential elections, and
if I also heard him right, he said that Congress has no choice but to go ahead
regardless of the authenticity of the canvassing results. Is that correct?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No. I said, without being bound. This means that the
Congress still has the power to determine the genuineness and authenticity
of the
certificates, but the duty to canvass is there. The Congress should canvass,
but with respect to the determination of the genuineness and authenticity of
the certificates of canvass based on existing laws and jurisprudence. I just
clarified whether it is limited to statutory laws or to the decisions of the
Supreme Court or what constitutes genuine and authentic certificates.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, if a prudent examination will show that
canvassing results are not authentic, not duly executed, and do not reflect
the votes
because the canvassing results do not have the attached statement of votes
of each polling place, what is the responsibility of the Congress?
MR. MAAMBONG: May I respond to that? In the present law that we have, we
have only one copy of the certificate of canvass. According to the Omnibus
Election Code and the law which mandated the holding of the special
presidential election, attached to this copy of the certificate of canvass is the
statement of votes. That is a legal requirement. When the board of tellers
goes over the certificate of canvass and the words, figures, signatures and
thumbmarks are clearly written, the question probably, Madam President, is,
what will they do if there is no attachment of statement of votes? The answer
to that is: The board of tellers would have to suspend the canvass and inform
the Commission on Elections to produce before the body their copy of the
certificate of canvass wherein the statement of votes is also attached. The
board of tellers could also inform the opposition party to produce their copy
of the certificate of canvass and the statement of votes attached to the
same, and also inform the majority party. That would be the proper sequence
of
procedure, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Suppose the numbers in the certificate of canvass do not
coincide with the attachments which are really the votes per polling place?
MR. MAAMBONG: If the figures which are the total figures appearing in the
certificate of canvass will not tally with the figures that would pose quite a
problem. That is precisely the reason why in the present configuration of the
provision, we placed there determination of the authenticity and due
execution thereof in the manner provided by law because to my knowledge,
there is no law which gives a guideline in such a circumstance. As a matter of
fact, in the actual canvass of votes of the President in the last presidential
election. we did not encounter that kind of problem. And there is no such
equivalent provision in the Omnibus Election Code or in the Special Election
Law for the President.
MR. MONSOD: Were there instances where the certificates of canvass after
examination were shown not to have been authentic on their faces or had
irregularities and the Assembly still read those certificates of canvass? I am
asking now if there were instances like those, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is a very valid question. The usual objection was that
not all the members of the board of canvassers, whether by the province or
city
or district, signed some certificates of canvass. But that is remedied by the
provision of the Omnibus Election Code which says that in case one or two
members of the board of canvassers did not sign, but a majority of the
membership thereof signed, then that particular certificate of canvass can be
used
in the tabulation. But that was the decision because there was a law. But the
problem is when there is such a circumstance and there is no law covering it.
That is the reason we placed here in the manner provided by law so that
we can more or less anticipate problems of this nature.
MR. MONSOD: Commissioner de los Reyes also mentioned that in the
absence of a law, jurisprudence would be taken into account. Does that in
any way mean

that the practice in the last Batasan canvassing of the presidential election
would have any binding effect on the future?
MR. MAAMBONG: The practice adopted by the Batasang Pambansa in the last
presidential election, specifically that conducted by the board of tellers
composed
of the members of the opposition and of the ruling party then, could not be
considered to my mind, as jurisprudence. We are talking of decisions of the
Supreme Court just like the decision of the Supreme Court which I mentioned
earlier where the certificate of canvass or the election returns brought
forward to the canvassing authority were not in the ballot box as provided by
law but were instead in a jute sack. The Supreme Court said that if the
election returns itself are regular on its face in spite of the fact that these
were not placed in the ballot box, then the canvassing authority may
proceed with the canvass.
MR. MONSOD: That would not be considered a good precedent either.
MR. MAAMBONG: As parallel authority perhaps, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: In that connection, may I add that what Commissioner de
los Reyes was referring to were the decisions of the appellate courts which
under the
Civil Code form part of the legal system of the Philippines; although, of
course, the doctrine of stare decisis does not mean blind adherence to
precedents. If not applicable in the contemporaneous situation or they are
not in pari materia, the distinctions could always be made.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we now have copies of the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers, as amended.
May I move for the suspension of the session for at least three minutes for us
to study this Article.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there still other interpellators?
MR. SARMIENTO: There are five more interpellators, Madam President.
It was 4:27 p.m.
MR. SARMIENTO: The Commissioners have carefully studied the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers; I move that we put it to a vote on Second
Reading.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
RECONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 456
Continuation
MS. AQUINO: Thank you. Madam President.
I am constrained to seek a reconsideration of the voting on Section 14 which
included the judiciary in the prohibition of the availments of loans and
guarantees from government-owned or controlled banks. There is an
overwhelming reaction against the approval of the inclusion of the judiciary,
without
distinction, among the groups prohibited from availing of the loans and
guarantees of government-owned or controlled banks.
Madam President, I am actually taking up the cudgels for the senior citizens
of the Commission who, for one reason or another, have appointed me and
designated me to seek reconsideration of this section. They may be a little
timid about it, but just the same, I share their sentiment on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion to reconsider, as
submitted by Commissioner Aquino? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is
approved.
What is the particular amendment of Commissioner Aquino?

MS. AQUINO: The amendment would be on line 17 of the same section. After
the comma (,) after the word Congress, insert MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME
COURT,
delete and before Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and
insert AND before the words the Ombudsman. The amended section will
now read: No
loan, guaranty or other form of financial accommodation for any business
purpose may be granted directly or indirectly by any government-owned or
controlled bank or financial institution to the President, Vice-President,
Members of the Cabinet, Members of Congress, MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME
COURT,
Members OF the Constitutional Commissions, AND the Ombudsman or to any
firm or entity in which he has controlling interest, during his tenure.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee Chairman on Accountability of
Public Officers say?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee has discussed this and the
Committee accepts the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment inserting
the words MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT and eliminating the word
Judiciary?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. MONSOD: In the copy that is being circulated to the Members, there are
some typographical and styling amendments that need to be made. We will
just
refer those to the Committee on Style. However, there is one phrase which, I
think, was inadvertently omitted on page 5, line 21 which says: and shall
notify the complainants of the action taken.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President. the amendment of Commissioner Suarez
and which was accepted by the Committee is to insert between shall and
notify the
phrase IN APPROPRIATE CASES.
MR. MONSOD: We will leave it to the Committee on Style whether to put it
before or after the word notify, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would just like to move for a reconsideration of the
approval of Section 3 (3). My reconsideration will not at all affect the
substance,
but it is only in keeping with the exact formulation of the Rules of the House
of Representatives of the United States regarding impeachment.
I am proposing, Madam President, without doing damage to any of this
provision, that on page 2, Section 3 (3), from lines 17 to 18, we delete the
words
which read: to initiate impeachment proceedings and the comma (,) and
insert on line 19 after the word resolution the phrase WITH THE ARTICLES,
and
then capitalize the letter i in impeachment and replace the word by
with OF, so that the whole section will now read: A vote of at least one-third
of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a
resolution WITH THE ARTICLES of Impeachment OF the Committee or to
override its
contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
I already mentioned earlier yesterday that the initiation, as far as the House
of Representatives of the United States is concerned, really starts from the
filing of the verified complaint and every resolution to impeach always
carries with it the Articles of Impeachment. As a matter of fact, the words
Articles of Impeachment are mentioned on line 25 in the case of the direct
filing of a verified complaint of one-third of all the Members of the House. I
will mention again, Madam President, that my amendment will not vary the
substance in any way. It is only in keeping with the uniform procedure of the
House of Representatives of the United States Congress.
Thank you. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from Commissioners Davide and Regalado
because I understand they are co-authors of this section.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President may we have one minute to confer with
Commissioner Regalado?
It was 5:04 p.m.
At 5:06 p.m., the session is resumed.
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I have conferred with the principal
proponent of this provision on impeachment, Commissioner Regalado, in
collaboration with
the Chairman of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, and they
have no objection to the amendment. I will just make it of record, Madam
President, that with regard to the last phrase of line 20 which says: to
override its contrary resolution, whenever the body will override the
resolution
of impeachment of the Committee, it is understood that the body itself will
prepare the Article of Impeachment. That is the only clarification which
Commissioner Regalado and the Chairman of the Committee wanted me to
put on record.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us first submit to the body the motion of Commissioner
Maambong to reconsider the approval of Section 3 (3).
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
The proposed amendment which has been submitted by Commissioner
Maambong was clarified and has been accepted by the Committee on
Accountability of Public
Officers.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I read again the whole section?
MR. MAAMBONG: As amended, the whole Section 3 (3) will read: A vote of at
least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to
affirm a resolution WITH THE ARTICLES of Impeachment OF the Committee or

to override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be
recorded.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hear none; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President. some of us have exercised self-abnegation
in making speeches because of time constraint. I have written a speech on
why the
Sandiganbayan and the Tanodbayan should not be abolished. May I just
submit it for insertion in the Record? *
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be the last speaker
before we vote on Second Reading?
I do not know whether this is in order, but for the sake of the record, I want
to read part of the debates that would have been included in yesterdays
proceedings were it not for the fact that the amendment I shall now refer to
was really a consolidated amendment of Commissioners Jamir, Sarmiento,
Natividad and myself. I feel very strongly about this because we of the
Philippine Social Science Council have been so deeply involved in the effort
to
link up the Council with the efforts to arrive at a modicum of ethics and
efficiency in the public service. For sometime, we were involved in efforts to
address ourselves to government, but our experiences proved that
government, particularly the last Batasang Pambansa, was unresponsive to
the efforts of
the social science council. To illustrate, in 1984, we launched a public forum
series, trying to set up some kind of working relationship between the
Philippine Social Science Council and the Batasang Pambansa through a
monthly forum. In the first forum, we had something like eight Members of
the
Batasang Pambansa; however, we finally ended up with only one participant
from the Batasang Pambansa. Because of this rather traumatic experience,
we
thought that we should direct our efforts to the peoples organizations
themselves. For this reason, we set up the Resources for the Peoples
Program to
allow social scientists to work directly with the peoples organizations as well
as advocates of peoples organizations.
It is one of our main concerns that those in the public service should indeed
maintain high standards of ethics and efficiency. For this reason, I just
want to point out in relation to Section 12 (7), which has something to do
with efforts to determine and make recommendations for the observance of
high
standards of ethics and efficiency, the root causes of inefficiency, red tape,
mismanagement, frauds and corruption in the government that most of the
provisions that have to do with the functions of the Tanodbayan or
Ombudsman are reactive and corrective in character. We thought that these
provisions
should allow for anticipation and, therefore, should be preventive of
bureaucratic corruption. Nonetheless, the provisions, I think, fail to
underscore the
fact that we cannot isolate bureaucratic corruption from the larger problems
of society. Let us quote, for instance, from a study of bureaucratic
corruption in Asia, which says:
The major lacuna in the anticorruption policies adopted by all of these
countries is that they seem to view the problem of governmental corruption
in very
myopic terms in isolation from other forms of white-collar crime.
Underlying most anticorruption policies, there is the assumption that the
problem of
corruption in government has very little to do with the other forms of whitecollar criminality. This in fact accounts for a sizable part of the
ineffectiveness of their anticorruption policies or strategies. As a matter of
fact, corruption in public bureaucracy and government as will be shown
below constitutes a part of the wider area of white-collar crimes. Whitecollar crime in every sense is real crime. It has been overlooked and
underplayed far too long.
For the record, let me just read the definition of white-collar crimes by the
United States Department of Justice:
Those classes of non-violent illegal activities which principally involve
traditional notions of deceit, deception, concealment, manipulation, breach
of
trust, subterfuge or illegal circumvention.
The point is that we really should not isolate efforts at combating
bureaucratic corruption from the larger crimes that take place in the larger
society. I
think that it should be part of the duties of the Ombudsman to anticipate and
make necessary corrections with respect to bureaucratic corruption.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 456 ON SECOND READING
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I move that we vote on Proposed
Resolution No. 456, as amended, on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT. Those who are in favor of Proposed Resolution No. 456, as
amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
Those who are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 35 votes in favor, one against and one abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 456, as amended, is approved on Second Reading.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 517
Continuation
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President. may we proceed to the period of
interpellations of Proposed Resolution No. 517?
I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
motion is approved.
We will continue the period of interpellations on the Article on the Executive.

Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I have two rather simple questions which, although simple,
rest on the proposition that as worded, they constitute very concrete ways of
constituting and reconstituting thought and reality. I refer to Section 16 on
page 8, the first line of which originates on page 7:
The Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers in the
President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of department.
I remember that during the discussion on the judiciary, the reference to
inferior courts was changed to lower courts. I wonder if by the same reason
the
use of inferior shall also be used at some future time, or I think it can be
done even now. I do not think the Congress shall be appointing inferior
officers in terms of a certain kind of quality of persons, but rather in terms of
ranks, unless that is the intent of the provision.
MR. REGALADO: That was taken from Section 10 (3), Article VII of the 1935
Constitution, and partly from Section 12 of the 1973 Constitution which used
the
word inferior. Does Commissioner Bennagen have a proposal for a more
felicitous term?
MR. BENNAGEN: Maybe in due time when the time for amendment comes.
FR. BERNAS: Let me just add that the term inferior means lower in rank
than the officers mentioned above.
MR. BENNAGEN: So, it means lower in rank. My next question refers to
Section 19 which reads:
The President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet, and chiefs of bureaus
or offices and their assistants shall not, during their term, hold any other
office or employment, nor may they practice any profession, participate. . .
I asked one time the question as to the meaning of shall in the
Constitution, whether shall is mandatory or directory. The answer was,
sometimes it is
directory, sometimes it is mandatory. It would seem that in the context of the
overall provision, the tendency may be to use it in its directory sense
because of the use of may in the next sentence. In the deliberation of the
Committee, is the meaning of shall directory or mandatory?
MR. REGALADO: Under the rules of statutory construction, when we use the
word shall alone there may be instances when it may be considered
may, but
when this is used in a negative shall not then that is mandatory.
MR. BENNAGEN: We take it to mean, therefore, that may in the second
sentence is also mandatory?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, it is mandatory.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we have four more interpellators. May I
ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President and honorable sponsors, my
comment is on Section 18, page 8, which has to do with the powers of the
President to
contract foreign loans. I quite concur with my fellow Commissioners that
perhaps we should have a more specific provision not necessarily in the
Article on
the Executive, and that the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony come up with specific criteria and mechanisms that would ensure
the broadening
of the membership of this Monetary Board to include those in the social
sector and would ensure the Boards independence.
My second comment has to do with Section 17, the last sentence of the first
paragraph which does not appear in the previous Constitutions. Is there a
reason for including it in the section? What is its rationale?
MR. REGALADO: May we know what last sentence the Commissioner is
referring to.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 17
which reads:
MR. REGALADO: Actually this is an addition to the already existing limitations
to the pardoning power of the President. The Commissioner will notice that
we took into account those crimes which are of such magnitude as to affect
not only the political but also the economic life of the country, as, for
instance, violations of election laws. In convictions of electoral offenses, the

President cannot grant pardons and so forth without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission on Elections because such violations
affect and go into the very political system. These frauds we are referring to
here,
which also shall be subject to legislation insofar as the pardoning power of
the President is concerned, are violations of corrupt practices laws which go
into the very economic life of the country, considering the massive frauds
that we have experienced and which we are trying to remedy.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: May I add something. Actually, this last sentence is a
compromise because the original proposal was that violations of the AntiGraft Law
should not be pardoned without the recommendation of the convicting court,
whereas others felt that the pardoning power of the President should not be
further limited. So, as a compromise, this provision was put in. Let us leave
to the legislature the matter of whether or not it would want to limit it.
My third comment is on the question of style. In the light of the recognition of
womens equal rights, would the Committee consider recommending to the
Committee on Style the rewriting of some phrases of the Article to minimize
the use of the masculine gender when referring to public officials? I made a
few changes not only in this Article but also in the Article on the
Accountability of Public Officers, and I find that we could substitute the third
person
without making it less readable. If this could be done where it is possible, we
would like to strongly recommend the rewriting of it.
MR. REGALADO: We can assure Commissioner Rosario Braid that no
Commissioner here is a misogynist. We have nothing against the fair sex.
However, under the
rules of statutory construction, he may mean she or she may mean
he, although we would consider it a little awkward if we use the word she
and
her to include he and him. It would be, I think, a complete reversal of
the order of things.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, we will not refer to she or he but we could say
the President or the aforementioned official or we may omit the
reference
altogether.
MR. REGALADO: We will ask Commissioner Rodrigo, the defender of the fair
sex and Chairman of the Committee on Style, to look for a felicitous
substitute
for that.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Lastly, on page 3, which refers to the salary of the
executive, lines 24 to 27 may be deleted perhaps because we may not want
to specify
the salary on account of the fluctuating value of the peso.
MR. REGALADO: For the information of Commissioner Rosario Braid, there
was a proposal from Commissioner Monsod to follow what they did in the
salaries of
the judiciary so that we could adopt that formulation for the salaries of the
executive as well as of the legislative departments
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that the honorable
Commissioner Suarez be recognized.
May I go over this Article and let me begin with page 2, Section 4, line 5. I do
not know if this point had already been clarified but the term National
Assembly is being used. In conducting the canvass of presidential and vicepresidential elections, is our understanding correct that this will be done
jointly by the House of Representatives and the Senate in joint session
assembled?
MR. REGALADO: May we ask for the page, section and line number.
MR. SUAREZ: This is on page 2, line 5, Section 4.
MR. REGALADO: Page 2. I think Commissioner Suarez might be using the
original resolution. Does the copy of the Commissioner have on the upper
right hand
corner this parenthetical phrase Adjusted to Bicameral Legislature?
MR. SUAREZ: No, what I have is the one with the parenthetical phrase
Substitute Resolution.
MR. REGALADO: There is a subsequent one.
Will the Secretariat kindly furnish Commissioner Suarez a copy of the latest
adjustment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Under the latest draft, it says:
. . . open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session.
Is joint public session equivalent to in joint session assembled that was
used under the 1935 Constitution?
MR. REGALADO: That is right. It was emphasized that it should be in joint
public session.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you. Let me proceed to line 23, page 2, wherein it is
provided, and I quote:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc shall be the sole judge of all contests
Vice-president.
Are we not giving enormous work to the Supreme Court especially when it is
directed to sit en banc as the sole judge of all presidential and
vice-presidential election contests?
MR. SUMULONG: That question will be referred to Commissioner Concepcion.
MR. CONCEPCION: This function was discharged by the Supreme Court twice
and the Supreme Court was able to dispose of each case in a period of one
year as
provided by law. Of course, that was probably during the late 1960s and
early 1970s. I do not know how the present Supreme Court would react to
such
circumstances, but there is also the question of who else would hear the
election protests.
MR. SUAREZ: We are asking this question because between lines 23 to 25,
there are no rules provided for the hearings and there is no time limit or
duration
for the election contest to be decided by the Supreme Court. Also, we will
have to consider the historical background that when RA 1793, which
organized
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, was promulgated on June 21, 1957, at
least three famous election contests were presented and two of them ended
up in
withdrawal by the protestants out of sheer frustration because of the delay in
the resolution of the cases. I am referring to the electoral protest that
was lodged by former President Carlos P. Garcia against our kabalen former
President Diosdado Macapagal in 1961 and the vice-presidential election
contest filed by the late Senator Gerardo Roxas against Vice-President
Fernando Lopez in 1965.
MR. CONCEPCION: I cannot answer for what the protestants had in mind. But
when that protest of Senator Roxas was withdrawn, the results were already
available. Senator Roxas did not want to have a decision adverse to him. The
votes were being counted already, and he did not get what he expected so
rather than have a decision adverse to his protest, he withdrew the case.
MR. SUAREZ: Also, there is the case of the late Senator Sergio Osmea filed
against President Marcos in 1969.
MR. CONCEPCION: The same thing happened. These withdrawals took place
when the results were already about to be announced.
MR. SUAREZ: I see. So the Commissioner would not have any objection to
vesting in the Supreme Court this matter of resolving presidential and
vice-presidential contests?
MR. CONCEPCION: Personally, I would not have any objection.
Would the Commissioner not consider that violative of the doctrine of
separation of powers?
MR. CONCEPCION: I think Commissioner Bernas explained that this is a
contest between two parties. This is a judicial power.
MR. SUAREZ: We know, but practically the Committee is giving to the
judiciary the right to declare who will be the President of our country, which
to me is
a political action.
MR. CONCEPCION: There are legal rights which are enforceable under the
law, and these are essentially justiciable questions.
MR. SUAREZ: If the election contest proved to be long, burdensome and
tedious, practically all the time of the Supreme Court sitting en banc would
be
occupied with it considering that they will be going over millions and millions
of ballots or election returns, Madam President.
MR. CONCEPCION: The time consumed or to be consumed in this contest for
President is dependent upon the key number of teams of revisors. I have no
experience insofar as contests in other offices are concerned.
MR. SUAREZ: Although there is a requirement here that the Supreme Court is
mandated to sit en banc?
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: I see.
MR. CONCEPCION: The steps involved in this contest are: First, the ballot
boxes are opened before teams of three, generally, a representative each of
the
court, of the protestant and of the protestee. It is all a question of how
many teams are organized. Of course, that can be expensive, but it would be
expensive whatever court one would choose. There were times that the
Supreme Court, with sometimes 50 teams at the same time working, would
classify the
objections, the kind of problems, and the court would only go over the
objected votes on which the parties could not agree. So it is not as awesome
as it
would appear insofar as the Court is concerned. What is awesome is the cost
of the revision of the ballots because each party would have to appoint one
representative for every team, and that may take quite a big amount.
MR. SUAREZ: If we draw from the Commissioners experience which he is
sharing with us, what would be the reasonable period for the election contest
to be
decided?
MR. CONCEPCION: Insofar as the Supreme Court is concerned, the Supreme
Court always manages to dispose of the case in one year.
MR. SUAREZ: In one year. Thank you for the clarification.
May I now go to page 4, Section 9, lines 17 and 18. Let me just read it so the
Committee will understand me.
MR. MAAMBONG: Will the Commissioner refer by section.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, I thought I was working on the amended draft. Section 11,
lines 10 to 11, states: such powers and duties shall be discharged by the
Vice-President as Acting President. It is not Section 9, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Section 11.
MR. REGALADO: Where are we now?
MR. SUAREZ: Section 11, second paragraph states: Whenever a majority of
all the members of the Cabinet transmit to the President. This is different
again, is it not?
MR. REGALADO: Page 5, Section 11.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ. No, I have it on Section 9 of my copy. Section 9, page 4, lines
11 to 18 states:
The Congress shall by law provide permanent disability or resignation of the
Acting President at the time the vacancy in the Office of the President occurs
or subsequently thereafter, declaring who shall serve as President until the
President and the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified,
subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting
President.
My clarificatory question, Madam President, is this: Is it necessary for the one
declared as Acting President to be a Member of Congress or could he or
she, if I may be clear on that point, be drawn even from the private
nonpolitical sector?
MR. REGALADO: Will Commissioner Suarez please repeat the question. Is he
referring to page 4, lines 11 to 18?
MR. SUAREZ: It is the whole Section 9 which reads:
In case of permanent disability, death, removal from office or resignation of
the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the
unexpired term.
There is no problem in this provision, but the next sentence reads:
The Congress shall by law provide for the case of permanent disability,
death, removal from office or resignation of both the President and Vice
President,
declaring which officer shall then become Acting President or the manner in
which one shall be selected.
My question is: Is it necessary to draw this officer from the ranks of the
Members of Congress or is it theoretically possible that even a nonpublic
official can be appointed by Congress as Acting President of our country?
MR. REGALADO: The contemplation here, in line with the other relevant
provisions of this Article, was that he shall be chosen from the elected
representatives of the people.
MR. SUAREZ: Does the Commissioner not agree with me that that is not clear
in this particular section?
MR. REGALADO: We will entertain an amendment at the proper time to make
this particular section very clear.
MR. SUAREZ: So it is clear that the intention of the Committee in proposing
this provision is to the effect that the Acting President should come from the
Members of Congress.
MR. REGALADO: That is right, from the Members of Congress.
May we now go to Section 11, page 5. This refers to the Presidents written
declaration of inability to discharge the powers and duties of the Office of
the President. Can this written declaration be done for and in behalf of the
President if, for example, the President is in no position to sign his name,
like if he suffers an accident and both of his arms get to be amputated?
MR. REGALADO: We have not had a situation like that even in the jurisdiction
from which we borrowed this provision, but we feel that in that remote
situation that the Commissioner has cited in that the President cannot make
a written declaration, I suppose an alternative would be considered wherein
he
can so expressly manifest in an authentic manner what should be contained
in a written declaration. The purpose of a written declaration is to establish
authenticity.
MR. SUAREZ: But the phrase written declaration precludes any other kind
of declaration. I am thinking in terms of what happened to President Wilson.
Really, the physical disability of that Gentleman was never made clear to the
historians. But suppose a situation will happen in our country where the
President may suffer a coma and gets to be unconscious, which is practically
a total inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office, how can he
submit a written declaration of inability to perform the duties and functions

of his office?
FR. BERNAS: It is not the President who will make a written declaration that
he is disabled.
MR. SUAREZ: That applies to the second paragraph.
FR. BERNAS: What line?
MR. SUAREZ: I am referring to the first line of Section 11, not to the second
situation contemplated under the second paragraph of Section 11, Madam
President.
FR. BERNAS: Is it the line which states: Whenever a majority of all the
members of the Cabinet . . .?
MR. SUAREZ: No, it is the line which reads: Whenever the President
transmits . . .
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: So how can we expect a President who is in coma to transmit to
the National Assembly his written declaration admitting that he is unable to
discharge his duties?
FR. BERNAS: No, I am referring to the written declaration that there is no
inability. If the Commissioner takes a look at line 20 which states: his
written declaration that no inability . . .
MR. SUAREZ: . . . that he is unable to discharge.
FR. BERNAS: I do not know if we are using the same text, Madam President.
Section 11 , line 18, states: Thereafter, when the President transmits to the
President of . . .
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, lines 5 to 11.
FR. BERNAS: I believe we are using different texts.
MR. SUAREZ: I am confused. Section 11, lines 5 to
FR. BERNAS: Yes, the Commissioner has a point there. When the President
cannot do it, then what is applicable is the second paragraph.
MR. SUAREZ: That means it is then incumbent, after a certain period of time,
for the members of the Cabinet to transmit to the President of the Senate
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge his
functions.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And they will not have to wait for the written declaration
coming from the President who is in coma?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, because he will never be able to make the written
declaration.
MR. SUAREZ: That is why we really have to interpret the first sentence of
Section 11, first paragraph with the second paragraph.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: With the indulgence of Commissioner Suarez, what it means
is that the second paragraph comes into play whenever the President,
although
capable of making a written declaration, refuses to do so or although he is
willing to make that written declaration, he is incapable of doing so, then the
initiative shall be taken by the majority of the members of the Cabinet.
MR. SUAREZ: That changes the complexion of the answer of the Honorable
Bernas insofar as the first paragraph of Section 11 is concerned, Madam
President.
MR. REGALADO: Under Section 11, Commissioner Bernas was correct in that
if the President is capable of making the written declaration himself, he may
do
so; but if he is really incapable or in coma, as the Commissioner said, I think
Commissioner Bernas answer was that it can be done.
MR. SUAREZ: Under paragraph 2? But we are precluding that under the
second paragraph.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. The situation the Commissioner contemplates under the
first paragraph is that of a person whose only defect is that both his hands
were
amputated.
MR. SUAREZ: Or he is completely or totally unconscious.
FR. BERNAS: If he is totally unconscious, then what is applicable is the

second paragraph.
MR. SUAREZ: But I heard Commissioner Regalado say that it is only when the
President who is capable of making a written declaration but refuses to
submit
one that the second paragraph would apply.
FR. BERNAS: No.
MR. SUAREZ: Which is the correct interpretation then?
MR REGALADO: I said, whenever the President is capable but refuses to do
so, and when he wants to do so but is incapable of doing so. It covers both
situations.
MR. SUAREZ: I am still a little confused but, nonetheless, maybe the
interpretation that we would like the Committee to give governing Section 11
has a
quite clear meaning. Let us clear up any confusion regarding this matter.
FR. BERNAS: I think what is meant here is that there are times when a
President may be completely reasonable; he knows he is incapable so he
signs a
written declaration. And then we may have a situation of a President who
goes out of his mind, and everybody thinks he is really out of his mind; he,
therefore, refuses to sign a written declaration that he is incapable. In such a
case, the Cabinet members can say that he is incapable under the second
paragraph.
MR. SUAREZ: And no time limit is provided within which the President should
transmit that written declaration?
FR. BERNAS: There is no time limit.
MR. SUAREZ: We may have a Wilson situation in our hands one of these
days.
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, the second paragraph is to take care of a Wilson
situation.
MR. SUAREZ: I see.
MR. REGALADO: The Wilson situation was in 1917. Precisely, this Twenty-Fifth
Amendment to the American Constitution was adopted on February 10, 1967
to
prevent a recurrence of such a situation. Besides, it was not only the Wilson
matter. As I have already mentioned here, they have had five situations in
the United States, including those of President Garfield, President Wilson,
President Roosevelt and President Eisenhower.
MR. SUAREZ: Let me go to Section 19. I do not know if in the latest draft this
has already been amended because what was stated here was only
directly,
and probably the Commissioner would have noticed that in the matter of
special or financial privilege, it should also include indirectly.
I wonder if the Committee had already taken note of the phrase in Section
19, line 29 which states: financially interested directly in any contract . .
. Did the Committee deliberately omit the phrase or indirectly, which
refers to financial or special privilege?
MR. REGALADO: We will entertain an amendment to that. We took that from
Section 11(2) of the 1935 Constitution. But I suppose the Committee will
entertain
a perfecting amendment at the proper time.
The last question is with reference to the Committees omitting in the draft
proposal the immunity suit provision for the President. I agree with
Commissioner Nolledo that the Committee did very well in striking out this
second sentence, at the very least, of the original provision on immunity
from
suit under the 1973 Constitution. But would the Committee members not
agree to a restoration of at least the first sentence that the President shall be
immune from suit during his tenure, considering that if we do not provide
him that kind of an immunity he might be spending all of his time facing
litigations, as the President-in-exile in Hawaii is now facing litigations almost
daily?
FR. BERNAS: The reason for the omission is that we consider it understood in
present jurisprudence that during his tenure he is immune from suit.
MR. SUAREZ: So, there is no need to express it here.
FR. BERNAS: There is no need. It was that way before. The only innovation
made by the 1973 Constitution was to make that explicit and to add other
things.
MR. SUAREZ: On that understanding, I will not press for any more query,
Madam President.
I thank the Commissioner for the clarification.

Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President and Committee members, I am very
interested in the Office of the Vice-President.
From the 1935 Constitution up to the 1973 Constitution, even in the United
States Constitution, the vice-presidency has been a solitary, ineffectual,
half-heartedly wanted kind of an office that is looked down on as worse than
a spare tire in its category, so much so that a former Vice-President of the
United States said: Dont run for that office; it is not worth a spit.
I was hoping that the new Constitution now emerging in our midst and
through our humble hands would do something about this position, which,
although it is
similar to a lady-in-waiting, nevertheless, is so important because as we
have said it time and time again, trite as it is, he is only a heartbeat away.
I am a little bit disappointed because Section 3 provides that he will be
elected in the same manner as the President; that he must have the same
qualifications and term of office; and that he may be removed from office in
the same manner as the President, but then in the next sentence, it says:
The
Vice-President may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet. It is not even
mandatory but only directory.
Also, we mention in Section 5 that he shall become President when the
President-elect shall have died, which is a good consolation. But on page 8,
Section
19, to make matters even worse if I may use the phrase adding insult to
injury to his dignity he shall not even be allowed during his term of office
to hold any other office or employment, nor may he practice any profession,
etc.
I am just wondering why we did not, in a sense, upgrade the category of the
Vice-President and make him, say, a Vice-President truly in waiting to take
over the presidency so that he will be, as a result, a knowledgeable, effective
kind of a leader. We know that in our history, there was more than one
Vice-President elevated to the presidency, and one of them was not given
any kind of job whatsoever; fortunately, the Filipino people saw to it that that
was rectified so he got elected to the presidency later on.
Could we not do something by way of making it definite that the VicePresident, even as we have enumerated the functions of the President in his
responsibilities, shall be I do not know if Commissioner Monsod would
laugh at this the Ombudsman and the champion of the people so that by
being in
that category, he will become a knowledgeable, effective kind of a leader
when he becomes President? I am just wondering about that.
FR. BERNAS: Similar points were raised this morning by the Honorable
Rodrigo, and our answer was that we certainly would entertain amendments
which would
attempt to give an important position to the Vice-President. However, with
respect to lines 19 and 20, which say: The Vice-President may be appointed
as a
member of the Cabinet, we said that it is necessary not to make this
mandatory because of the nature of the presidential system.
In the presidential system, a member of the Cabinet is necessarily in the
bosom of the President, and under the principle of qualified political agency,
an
act of a Cabinet member is an act of the President, unless specifically
repudiated by him. So that necessarily, therefore, any member of the
Cabinet must
be somebody whom the President absolutely trusts. We cannot impose
Cabinet members on him. So we give him the liberty to make the VicePresident a Cabinet
member or not.
So while we would not yield on forcing the President to take him as a Cabinet
member, he would entertain other positions for him, perhaps, as President of
the Senate.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, that is another consuelo de bobo because if
we make him the presiding officer of the Senate, we even take away the
privilege
of voting because he only votes when there is a tie.
FR. BERNAS: It is just an example, Madam President, and if the Commissioner
can think of a preeminent position for the Vice-President, we will entertain
it.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, I already sent a note to Commissioner Rodrigo this
morning regarding this matter Being my seatmate, he was the one who told
me what the
technicalities were, so I told him to kindly support me in my proposed
amendment about which I am very much concerned, which is to make the
position of the
Vice-President more dignified, more respectable and more meaningful. And I
think Commissioner Rodrigo is in sympathy with it now that the
Commissioner
mentioned that he asked questions about it.
So I would be very happy if the Committee would entertain an amendment
regarding the position of the Vice-President at the proper time.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask, Madam President, that the honorable Chancellor
and Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
In reply to the interpellation of Commissioner Suarez regarding the first
paragraph of Section 9, the Committee said that the officer who shall be
declared
Acting President will be chosen from among the Members of Congress; am I
correct?
FR. BERNAS: That was the answer given.
FR. BERNAS: And we also said that that does not come out very clearly in the
text so that, therefore, we will entertain amendments to clarify it.
With regard to the second paragraph, I suppose the same answer will hold
regarding the person declared by Congress to become the Acting President.
When we say that the Congress shall declare which officer shall become the
Acting President, I presume that we are talking of Congress in joint session
assembled, which means that in practically all cases, it will be a Member of
the House who will be selected because of its sheer number of Members.
FR. BERNAS: Section 9, second paragraph says that Congress shall by law
provide for it.
MR. GUINGONA: So it will have to be by law, if both Houses will have to
concur?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.

Is the word shall in Section 10 mandatory or directory?
FR. BERNAS: It is mandatory.
MR. GUINGONA: It is mandatory.
I see that Congress now is required, under this Constitution, to call a special
election in case of a vacancy as specified in Section 9, but the last
sentence of Section 10 says:
No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within seventy days
before the date of the next presidential election.
I presume we are contemplating here a situation where there would be
someone serving as President under Section 9. I was wondering whether or
not the
Committee would agree with me that 70 days before the next presidential
election might seem too short because under this section, the Constitution
requires
that the special election shall be held not earlier than 45 days nor later than
60 days. Assuming that 60 days elapses from the time that Congress shall
call the special election, there will only be roughly 10 days before the date of
the next presidential election. We should consider the expense because I
presume that the person who shall be elected in the special election would
only serve for the unexpired term of maybe a month or two. I wonder if, at
the
appropriate time, the honorable members of the Committee would be willingto consider lengthening the period of 70 days.
MR. MAAMBONG: The Commissioner has a very good point there, and if I
recall correctly, the parallel provision to this mentions something like a
period of
18 months. So, we would certainly entertain amendments considering the
Commissioners computation that it would be only around 10 days left before
the next
election.
I thank the Commissioner for that reminder.
MR. GUINGONA: I also thank the Commissioner; thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we have the last two interpellators, and I
hope there will be no more interpellators after them. I ask that the honorable
Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
MR. JAMIR: This is not exactly an interpellation, Madam President, but merely
a clarification. I refer to Section 4, lines 20 to 22, page 2, where two or
more candidates for President obtained equal and the highest number of
votes, which says:
. . . one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
members of the Congress.
May I know whether the two Houses of Congress will be sitting together in
joint session or separately.
MR. REGALADO: The antecedent to that in the matter of the canvass already
speaks of a joint public session as we will note on lines 14 to 15. So in case
there is a tie, that very same joint public session will so determine.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you. My last clarificatory question is with reference to
Section 6, page 3 of the draft Article regarding the oath to be taken by the
President or Acting President, where there is no mention of the VicePresident. Is he going to take the same oath as provided here or not?
MR. REGALADO: There is no mention of the Vice-President in this section
because he may already be the President himself in case of death or
permanent
incapacity of the elected President, in which case he takes the oath as
President.
MR. JAMIR: No, but when the President and the Vice-President take their oath
together upon inception to office, what oath shall the Vice-President take?
MR. REGALADO: Actually, in the previous Constitutions there were no such
provisions. It was assumed that he would take the same oath as the
President since
after all, he is just a heartbeat away as has been mentioned here. I think in
actual practice, they take the same oath.
MR. JAMIR: What made me doubt was the phrase here President or Acting
President. It seems that he will take his oath only when he becomes the
Acting
President.
MR. REGALADO: No, we added the phrase Acting President because there
are actually three situations where there can be an Acting President. But we
have
not provided for any oath, I think, in the 1935 or the 1973 Constitution
insofar as the Vice-President is concerned, it being assumed that he would
also
take the same oath as the President but in his capacity as Vice-President.
MR. JAMIR: Will there be any harm if instead of putting there or Acting
President, we put President and Vice-President?
MR. REGALADO: Perhaps, we can include under Section 6, line 9 the VicePresident. I do not think there will be any harm if we now specify that he
should
take the same oath.
MR. JAMIR: When the time for the period of amendments comes, we will
introduce an amendment.
Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that the honorable Vice-President,
Commissioner Padilla, be recognized as the last interpellator.
I agree with most of the changes introduced by the Committee as explained
by its distinguished Chairman.
I would like to go back to Section 15, on the commander-in-chief provision of
the Constitution on the Armed Forces.
I realize that without the restrictions or limitations that were inserted, this
provision is basically a copy of both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions.
The first sentence speaks of calling the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, although it mentions also invasion or rebellion and, I would
feel, also lawless violence or public disorder. The second sentence joins
together the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
proclamation of martial law, partly or wholly, throughout the Philippine
Archipelago.
In the following paragraphs of that Section 15, the Committee correctly
distinguished between a state of the declaration of martial law and the
suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Will the Committee consider
dividing the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 15 to the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and to the
declaration or proclamation of martial law, since the Committee correctly
distinguished
between a state of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the state
of the proclamation of martial law because according to the Committee itself,
there is a substantial difference between the two situations?
MR. REGALADO: I think the Committee will appreciate an amendment at the
proper time.
The way it now appears, the President as the Commander-in-Chief of all the
Armed Forces cannot immediately suspend the writ or proclaim martial law. I
agree with the period mentioned of 60 days, but it requires the concurrence
of at least a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
Should we not allow the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or even proclaim martial law without requiring a prior, or
beforehand, the concurrence of the majority of the Members of Congress? If
we wait for the congressional concurrence, the suspension of the writ or the
proclamation of martial law may be unduly delayed. Will the Committee
consider an amendment to the effect that the President may suspend the
privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus or even proclaim martial law, but the period shall
be limited unless there be subsequent concurrence of the Congress since the
Committee itself provides that the Congress may revoke, reduce or even
extend the period of 60 days? The point is for the insipiency of the
suspension or
the proclamation, it must not be preaccompanied by the concurrence of a
majority of the Members of the Congress.
MR. REGALADO: If the Commissioner will propose an amendment at the
proper time, I think we can even subject it to the reactions of the body.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, thank you very much. And probably because of some
substantial difference between the state of the suspension of the privilege of
the writ
of habeas corpus and the state of the proclamation of martial law, perhaps
we can also make some distinctions as to the grounds for each of these two
situations.
MR. REGALADO: Yes.

On Section 17, I am referring to the Substitute Resolution No. 517, as
adjusted to the bicameral legislature, page 8, lines 8 and 9, which mentions
violations of corrupt practices laws. This might refer exclusively to the socalled Tolentino version, RA 3019.
MR. REGALADO: Republic Acts 3019 and 1379.
MR. PADILLA: Republic Acts 3019 and 3017. Should we not expand the
phrase corrupt practices laws to say anti-graft and corruption laws, and
that would
include RA 1379, Articles of the Revised Penal Code under Title VII entitled
Crimes Committed by Public Officers and other laws that are existing or
enacted?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, the Commissioner will notice that we
have just put it as a generic phraseology violations of corrupt practices
laws,
whether the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, RA 3019 or the law on the
forfeiture of illegally acquired wealth, RA 1379 or those under Title VII, Book
II of the Revised Penal Code, which covers bribery, malversation, among
others.
MR. PADILLA: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: They are all covered here because they are corrupt practices
laws, aside from those that the future Congress may still enact.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct. That is why the mere expression of corrupt
practices laws, although stated in the plural, might make specific reference
to
that special law.
MR. REGALADO: No, Madam President. We will put it on record that that was
not the intention.
MR. PADILLA: Section 9, lines 11 to 12, mentions death, permanent
disability or resignation . . . but it makes no mention of removal which is
one of
the four cases to create a vacancy in the Office of the President or perhaps
also in the Office of the Vice-President.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, line 11 et sequentiae refers to death,
disability or resignation of the Acting President because there are only three
situations wherein there can be an Acting President.
MR. PADILLA: So it purposely did not include removal because he is just a

temporary Acting President.
MR. REGALADO: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, my last point is on Section 5, which, I notice,
covers the beginning of the term. In fact, the word beginning in that
section is mentioned three times. Can we not simplify this provision so as not
to make it too long?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, we can as a matter of style. We can simplify that.
Actually, we just took that from Section 6, Article VII of the 1935 Constitution
and
from the same section and article of the 1973 Constitution, but we can
improve on the phraseology.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, so that one colleague would have a good
nights rest tonight, may I ask that the Gentleman from Pampanga,
Commissioner
Suarez, be recognized for one quick clarificatory question.
This is very simple but very vital. May I call the sponsors attention to page 7,
Section 15, line 22, which mentions the phrase judicially charged. Do I
take it that this does not refer to cases pending before the fiscals office or
before the prosecution department of the Ministry of Justice? I am very
concerned about this because it means the interpretation of the suspension
of the privilege of-the writ of habeas corpus.
MR. SUMULONG: Commissioner Concepcion will answer that question.
MR. CONCEPCION: May I know what section it is.
MR. SUAREZ: It is Section 15, page 7, line 22. When the Committee
employed the phrase judicially charged, does that mean it is referring
specifically and
categorically to a criminal charge filed in court and not to a pending
investigation, preliminary or otherwise custodial, before the office of the
fiscal
or the prosecutors office of the Ministry of Justice?
MR. CONCEPCION: That is correct.

MR. SUAREZ: I thank the sponsor for the clarification.
MR. CONCEPCION: I might add that the purpose is that as soon as a person is
apprehended, he must be turned over to a court for such actions as may be
necessary.
MR. SUAREZ: Just for purposes of the record, suppose Juan de la Cruz is
charged before the fiscals office for rebellion or for offenses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion, does not the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus apply to him yet?
MR. CONCEPCION: It does not.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move that we close the period of
sponsorship and debate and that we proceed to the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the body ready to proceed to the period of amendments?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I divide my motion?
First, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we close the period of
sponsorship and debate on this Proposed Resolution No. 517? (Silence) The
Chair hears
none; the motion is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move that we now proceed to the
period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we proceed to the period of
amendments?
MR. SARMIENTO: On the basis of popular clamor, Madam President, I move
that we adjourn until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning
It was 6:26 p.m.
Footnotes:
* See appendix.
R.C.C. NO. 43
Wednesday, July 30, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Efrain B. Treas.
PRAYER
MR. TREAS: Heavenly Father, we humbly ask Your divine guidance in our
noble task to fulfill the sacred trust reposed in us to frame a fundamental law
for
our people.
Imbue us with Your Holy Spirit to enable us to enshrine in a Constitution the
principles of brotherhood, liberty, justice and democracy which You have so
kindly restored to us in Your miracle last February.
Inspire us with the same fervor of Your Holy Passion of the Cross so that we
may be able to overcome the hatred and vindictiveness that are the natural
fruits of more than a decade of ruthless suppression and persecution.
Lead us along the path of forgiveness and reconciliation towards the altar of
wisdom and statesmanship so that in the end we may achieve our solemn
goal of
providing our people with a framework of government that guarantees to us

our human rights and fundamental freedoms, secures to us and our posterity
our
God-given resources, and finds for us and the generations yet to come a
respected place under the sun and among the family of nations.
This we ask You, Almighty Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, Your Son.
Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading.
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present*
Nieva
Present*
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present*
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present*
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present*
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present*
Brocka
Present*
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present*
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present*
Gascon
Present*
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present*
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

MR. CALDERON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of
the previous session.
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the Reference of Business.
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the President
making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from NCP Sgt. Tawasil A. Hataie, Bureau of Customs, Port of
Zamboanga, proposing a constitutional provision requiring the government
to extend
humanitarian services to all departed government personnel/ officials who
died while still in the government service regardless of position/ designation.
Letter from Ms. Ester B. Sy-Quimsiam. Commission on Population,
Welfareville Compound, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, transmitting a position
paper submitted
by a group of private organizations regarding the population problem, saying
that a people-oriented population welfare program has better and greater
chances to bloom into full flowering if implemented along the lines of the
new governments humane concern and sincere call for self-renewal.
Letter from Mr. Jeremias U. Montemayor and Mr. Democrito T. Mendoza for
the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), submitting its position
paper
on the American military bases in the Philippines recommending that the
present Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty be respected until its
expiration in
1991.
Resolution from the Olongapo Jaycees, Inc., No. 12 Aquarius St., Lower
Kalaklan, Olongapo City. signed by its President. Mr. Johnny B. Choa,
recommending
the retention of the United States bases in the Philippines after 1991.
Letter from Stop Trafficking of Pilipinos Foundation Inc. signed by its
President. Minerva G. Laudico, and the other officers and members of the
Board of
Directors calling attention to the alarming resurgence of in decency in mass
media and entertainment and expressing alarm at the manner in which the
courts
have ruled in favor of those who have no apparent regard for the dignity of
women and for decent family relationship.
Communication signed by Ms. Elsa M. Gavino and one hundred fifty others.
urging that regulations on foreign investments and the determination of the
areas
of investment should be left to the legislature.

Letter from the Honorable Minister Candu I. Muarip of the Office of Muslim
Affairs and Cultural Communities, transmitting proposals and resolutions
drafted
by a group of Muslim professionals, scholars, and academicians, embodying
the general sentiments and common aspirations of the Muslim Filipinos and
the
tribal communities.
(Communication No .381 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
Communication from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, La Trinidad, Benguet,
and signed by its temporary Presiding Officer. Felix T. Cabading, transmitting
Resolution No. 273, entitled: RESOLUTION THAT THE HONORABLE BODY
ADOPT A STAND IN FAVOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONALIZATION AS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO STATUS QUO.
.
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Communication from the Stop Trafficking of Pilipinos Foundation, Inc. signed
by its President, Minerva G. Laudico, urging inclusion in the Constitution
provisions mandating the State to ensure an out-of-school environment
conducive to the moral education of the youth and reinforcing the right of
children
and young people to a sound intellectual and moral formation.
(Communication No. 383 Constitutional Commission of 1 986)
Letter from Dr. Helen Agustin de Guzman of U.P. AND be elected with and in
the same manner as the Medicine 1967, saying that it would be a wiser and
President. more prudent move for the Constitutional Commission not to
make a final pronouncement on the U.S. bases issue at this time and at such
a
hurried pace.

CONSIDERATION OF
Continuation
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the consideration of Proposed Resolution
No. 517 on the Article on the Executive. We are still in the period of
amendments.
motion is approved.
The honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on the Executive
are requested to please come forward to receive the proposed amendments
of the
Commissioners.
At this juncture, may we take advantage of informing our Commissioners of
our guests this morning. To my left, we have students from St. Scholasticas
Grade School, St. Scholasticas College, the UP Physiology class and the
Philippine Normal College. To my right, we have students from St. Bridgets
High
School and the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. We thank these
students very much for attending and showing their interest in the
deliberations
of the Commission.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
I have amendments to Section 3, page 1 of the substitute resolution adjusted
to the bicameral legislature. The first portion would be just a transposition
and would affect lines 14 and 16. After the second word shall on line 14, I
propose to transpose thereto the portion of line 16 which reads: have the
same qualifications and term of office and then add the word AND, so that
the first sentence now will read as follows: There shall be a Vice-President
who shall HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS AND TERM OF OFFICE AND be
elected with and in the same manner as the President.
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide restate his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The first line of Section 3, as amended, would read as follows:
There shall be a Vice-President who shall HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS
AND
TERM OF OFFICE AND be elected with and in the same manner as the
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment. Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 18 of the same section, I move for the deletion of the
phrase as provided in this Constitution.
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 20, I seek to introduce a new sentence after the period
(.) following the word cabinet. It reads: SUCH APPOINTMENT REQUIRES NO
CONFIRMATION.
MR. REGALADO: For the record, will Commissioner Davide state the reason
for his proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The reason for this is to appoint the Vice-President as a member
of the Cabinet and to require a confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments
on this might rather be degrading to the Office of the Vice-President. As a
matter of fact, for the judiciary and for the Ombudsman as well, we do not
require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. In line, therefore,
with the prestige of the Office of the Vice-President, I propose that the
appointment of the Vice-President to any Cabinet position should also not
necessitate a confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
MR. SUMULONG: With the explanation given by the proponent, we accept the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner read once more his proposed
amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment would be another sentence after the period (.)
following cabinet on page 1, line 20: SUCH APPOINTMENT REQUIRES NO
CONFIRMATION.
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on page 2, more particularly Section 4, line 5,
the amendments are: (I) Delete the word He and substitute it with the
words
THE PRESIDENT; (2) delete also the following words found on lines 5 and 6:
disqualified from immediate and substitute the same with INELIGIBLE FOR
ANY, so
that the sentence will only read as follows: THE PRESIDENT shall be
INELIGIBLE FOR ANY reelection.
The purpose of this amendment is to be consistent with what the body had
approved in the matter of the term of the President.
MR. REGALADO: May we inquire from Commissioner Davide why he proposes
that the President shall be completely ineligible for any future elective office
lower than the presidency?
MR. DAVIDE: The reason is that last Friday when we voted on the term of
office of different officials, our early resolution allowing the President no
immediate reelection was reconsidered by the body and the body opted to
allow no reelection for him at any time. To convey, therefore, that decision of
the
Commission, the rewording, as proposed, is necessary.
MR. REGALADO: During the deliberations on that issue, I think what was
contemplated there was a complete ban for reelection for the same position
as
President.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Would it not be possible that perhaps a former President

may wish to share his talents and experience with the people by running for
a lower
position like that of a Senator?
MR. DAVIDE: He can. He is only banned from reelection, meaning to the same
office, but not from running for any office. So the wording is very clear: THE
PRESIDENT shall be INELIGIBLE FOR ANY reelection.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, with that understanding.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, Commissioner Davides position is that the
word reelection necessarily implies that it is for the same office. Is this
accepted by the Committee?
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, will the distinguished sponsor agree to say
shall NOT be ELIGIBLE, instead of shall be INELIGIBLE. This is the same,
thing.
MR. DAVIDE: Shall NOT be ELIGIBLE is accepted.
MR. REGALADO: It is a matter of style; the Committee accepts.
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, to be consistent with the approved
amendment and to allow the Vice-President only one reelection, I propose a
new sentence
which will be added after the amendment that has been approved, to read as
follows: NO VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN TWO
SUCCESSIVE TERMS.
VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME SHALL
NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY OF THE
SERVICE FOR THE FULL TERM
FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
MR. REGALADO: May we have that again but slowly for the benefit of the
other Commissioners because the Committee members are already aware of
the
amendments of Commissioner Davide although the others may wish to have

these amendments duly noted in their own copies so that they can also
participate.
THE PRESIDENT: May we request Commissioner Davide to read it slowly.
MR. DAVIDE: I will read it very slowly, Madam President.
On line 6, following the amendment that has just been approved, add the
following: NO VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN TWO
SUCCESSIVE TERMS.
NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY OF THE
SERVICE FOR THE FULL TERM
FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
MR. SUMULONG: We accept the amendment because I think the Commission
has already reached the same decision previously.
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On the same page, the same Section 4, lines 9 and 10, delete
the words seat of the National Government and substitute the same with
the word
CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by the Committee?
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts.
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On page 2, between lines 22 and 23, I propose to insert a new
paragraph to read as follows: CONGRESS SHALL PROMULGATE ITS RULES
FOR THE
CANVASSING OF THE CERTIFICATES.
MR. SUMULONG: Will Commissioner Davide repeat the proposed

amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: CONGRESS SHALL PROMULGATE ITS RULES FOR THE
MR. REGALADO: For the benefit of the other Commissioners, will
Commissioner Davide explain his proposal?
MR. DAVIDE: This is necessary in order that Congress will have the authority
now to promulgate the necessary rules for the canvassing of the certificates
of canvass for the Offices of the President and the Vice-President. due
execution thereof, whereas the other one would be the rules of procedure.
MR. SUMULONG: We have no objection to the proposed amendment, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner read again the proposed new
paragraph?
MR. DAVIDE: CONGRESS SHALL PROMULGATE ITS RULES FOR THE
MR. DAVIDE: On line 25, after the words Vice-President, I propose to add
AND MAY PROMULGATE ITS RULES FOR THE PURPOSE. This refers to the
Supreme Court
sitting en banc. This is also to confer on the Supreme Court exclusive
authority to enact the necessary rules while acting as sole judge of all
contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President or VicePresident.
MR. REGALADO: My personal position is that the rule-making power of the
Supreme Court with respect to its internal procedure is already implicit under
the
Article on the judiciary; considering, however, that according to the
Commissioner, the purpose of this is to indicate the sole power of the
Supreme Court
without intervention by the legislature in the promulgation of its rules on this
particular point, I think I will personally recommend its acceptance to
the Committee.

approved.
MR. DAVIDE: If there are no other anterior amendments, I have some
proposals for Section 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us inquire from the Floor Leader.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are anterior amendments.
May I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: We will call Commissioner Davide, later.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONZOD: With the Chairs indulgence. I just want to take a few minutes
of our time to lay the basis for some of the amendments that I would like to
propose to the Committee this morning. The reason I am looking at the total
report on the executive department is that I have gone through some of the
amendments that we have already approved and considered in this
Assembly, and I am a little bit concerned about the emasculation of the
executive
department. I remember very well, when we first started our deliberations,
the explanation of Commissioner Bernas on what we will try to do. We have
set
objectives and now we are trying to build structures and systems in this
Constitution so that we can have a government that will operate, that will
work
for the achievement of those objectives. In this Constitution, we have
eliminated Amendment No. 6 which was the source of many problems. We
have eliminated
the lifetime immunity of the President and his representatives from every
action they have done. In the Article on Accountability of Public Officers, we
have done the reverse. We have turned 180 degrees by saying that the
action to recover property unlawfully gained or acquired shall not prescribe;
and, in
fact, we have even said there that even prosecution for criminal offenses
related thereto shall not be barred by prescription, laches and estoppel. I
have
my own reservations about the advisability of putting the criminal
prosecution there and perhaps that can be the subject of future discussions.
Very importantly, we have eliminated the political question from the

judiciary. We have established the Judicial and Bar Council and put the
judicially
department appointments out of the absolute reach of the presidency. We
have given the judiciary fiscal autonomy.
Last week, we voted for a bicameral legislature. Perhaps it is symptomatic of
what the thinking of this group is. that all of the provisions that were
being drafted up to that time assumed a unicameral government.
Therefore, even the safeguards assumed that there would be a unicameral
government which might again be under the undue influence of the
executive. But we
did decide that we would have a bicameral legislature. That means that not
only the lawmaking function and the appropriation function would go through
the
two Houses of legislature, but also the special events and special actions
that would require the approval of both Houses, among them the declaration
of
martial law.
So there are safeguards with a bicameral legislature. because the President
will have to contend and get the approval not only of one House but of two.
He
may have the unanimous approval of one but may not get the approval of
the other. With the system of check and balance, what we have instituted by
a
bicameral legislature is really two other bodies to check the President.
We have also made the constitutional commissions more independent. We
have enacted prohibitions on double offices. double compensation and other
sources of
income. We have made full disclosure of net worth a requirement.
In the case of the COMELEC, we have given it power to initiate court
proceedings and to initiate the deputation of the military. The President can
no
longer initiate that; it is only with the concurrence of the COMELEC. Also, all
three constitutional commissions have been given fiscal autonomy.
In the Bill of Rights, we have eliminated the Word insurrection and the
phrase imminent danger there of. We have refined and put all the
safeguards in
seizures and searches, and warrants of arrest.
In the Article on Accountability of Public Officers; we have liberalized the

procedures for impeachment and included betrayal of trust as a ground
therefor. We have created a constitutional ombudsman. We have declared
imprescriptible the right to recover property.
At the same time-and these will be forthcoming there will be great
demands for funds and resources and efficient management of the
government. There will
be proposals for socialized pricing, housing and education. There will be
agrarian reform requirements which I estimate could be as much as P10 to
P20
billion at the beginning. There is the proposal for a national health care. All of
these are meant to institute safeguards against abuse of power.
But, first, may we ask that we caution ourselves because when we put
individual safeguards, they may look all right by themselves and yet, if we
look at
the total system about which Commissioner Bernas spoke to us at the
beginning, we may be instituting too many safeguards and imponderable
possibilities
that the Executive will be unable to act.
We are opening up the system of initiative in amending the Constitution. We
have deconstitutionalized the two-party system. Hopefully, we will allow the
opening up of party list representatives and sectors in order to allow
minorities and the sectors to enter the legislature. We will be decentralizing
authority of local governments and we are constitutionalizing the power of
recall.
We have chosen a presidential system. It seems to be the real preference of
our people. As the name implies, the presidential system places
responsibility
and reliance on a Chief Executive to lead and act unlike a President in a
parliamentary system. For a President to be effective, he must have
adequate
powers and flexibility to deal with problems. Our present problems are
enormous. We have the economic recovery and growth problem. We have
some problems of
political instability, insurgency, sporadic lawless violence, dissatisfaction with
local appointments and the need for a new Constitution.
Today, that part of our Constitution that we are dealing with is the presidency
which, for some reasons and by our decision, has lesser powers now and is
subjected to more checks both institutionally and directly. We took away from
the President one political leverage; that is, the possibility of returning
to power. A good President needs some leverage in order to be effective.
Much as we would like to think that we have attained complete maturity, we

have
not. We need time and even people power to be able to make sure that the
presidency will work. Maybe in the future, we will be able to attain that kind
of
maturity.
But our long-term vision must also take account of continuing realities and
the dynamics and imperfectibility of human institutions.
So, today, we are looking at the presidency. Given the premises I have cited,
let us honestly ask ourselves: Have we created a self-destructing presidency?
Will the safeguards. no matter how noble and uplifting they are a
individually, cumulatively effect a paralysis of our presidency? Is it a
presidency that
can still operate effectively? Can it engage in effective management and
problem solving which are essentially executive functions? I refer particularly
to
the following: Is it possible for us to rethink the immediate reelection of the
President as a prohibition but opening it up to future canvass which could
be a leverage of a good President?
Specifically, I would also like to suggest an amendment to Section 15 on the
declaration of martial law, which says that even during the first 60 days. in
case of invasion or rebellion; the concurrence of the legislature is needed for
the President to declare martial law. Madam President, I believe that at
least for the first 60 days, which is a time fuse for it automatically expires at
the end of 60 days, we should at least give the President the flexibility
to act in cases of invasion and rebellion.
I also would like to propose the following amendments in addition to that: In
Section 21, where we talk about the budget of the government, I would like
to
add that the basis for the appropriations should be within an economic
development framework. We want the legislature to honor or respect the
authority of
the Executive to formulate the economic development program and for the
legislature to enact an appropriations law that is within that framework and
supportive of the long-term thrust of the country.
With regard to foreign loans which is on Section 18, I would like to suggest to
my colleagues who may be thinking of putting that power of concurrence in
the Congress not to emasculate the Executive that way. We are trying to put
an independent Monetary Board which should be a sufficient safeguard to
the
presidency.
On Section 16, I would like to suggest that the power of the Commission on
Appointments be limited to the department heads, ambassadors, generals
and so on
but not to the levels of bureau heads and colonels.
I would like to request that if it is at all possible, maybe we should discuss
again the question of immediate or future reelection.
The last one is on the question of judicially charged persons in case of
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus which I believe Commissioner
Bengzon will
also raise at the proper time. Madam President, these are the sections I
would like to amend. I am sorry that I took some of my colleagues time, but I
wanted to set the bases of these amendments and inform the body why I
would like to propose these amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: We request the Commissioner to please submit his
amendments to the Committee so that the members can study them. But in
the meantime, we
will go ahead because we adopted already the procedure of calling the
amendments section by section as requested.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, and as the appropriate section comes, I
will ask for recognition.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized. Is this for an anterior
amendment, Mr. Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: Yes; it is on Section 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may now proceed.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, before I submit my proposed amendment
which is co-authored by Commissioner Nolledo, may I ask the Committee one
question?
REV. RIGOS: In the Article the Commission approved the other day and
reiterated by Commissioner Davide this morning. the President may serve
only for one
full term without reelection. It was made clear, however, by Commissioner
Regalado that a President or a former President may run for another position,
probably for Senator or for Vice-President.
MR. REGALADO: That was Commissioner Davides amendment.
REV. RIGOS: Suppose this former President runs for Vice-President and he
gets elected. During his term, after a year or two the President becomes
incapacitated. Can the Vice-President, who was a former President, take the
place of the President?
MR. REGALADO: As it stands now, he can because that is not reelection. That
is succession to the Office of the President by the Vice-President as provided
for in the Constitution.
REV. RIGOS: I thought we approved sometime last week that a President who
has served the full term of six years could not serve as President again.
M.R. REGALADO: He cannot serve as President again by running for
reelection. so he can run for Vice-President.
REV. RIGOS: But he can hope that something happens to the President so he
becomes President again.
MR. REGALADO: Possibly with that hope which may either be an emptio spei
or an emptio rei speratae.
REV. RIGOS: That answers my question.
Our proposed amendment now is on pages 2 and 3, starting from line 32
which states:
The Congress shall by law provide for the case where neither a Presidentelect nor a Vice-President-elect shall have been chosen or shall have
qualified,
or both shall have died at the time fixed for the beginning of their term,
declaring who shall then act as President or the manner in which one who is
to
act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President
or Vice-President shall have qualified.
Our proposed amendment is to delete the whole sentence which begins with
The Congress shall and in lieu thereof substitute the following sentence:
WHERE
NEITHER A PRESIDENT-ELECT NOR A VICE- PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE
BEEN CHOSEN OR SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED OR BOTH SHALL HAVE DIED AT

THE TIME FIXED FOR THE
BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS THE SENATE PRESIDENT OR IN HIS ABSENCE
THEREOF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL THEN
ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A
PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED.
MR. REGALADO: May I suggest that Commissioner Rigos get together with
the two other proponents of the amendments on the very same section?
Commissioners
Maambong and Davide have their own versions. The three Commissioners
can get together and marry their suggested amendments to each other so
they can result
in a fertilized section.
REV. RIGOS: We can also include Commissioner de los Reyes.
MR. REGALADO: May we ask for a suspension of the session to facilitate the
resolving of the amendment.
It was 10:28 a.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the proponents of the amendment to Section 5
have come to some agreement I ask that Vice-President Padilla be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Vice-President Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President. I yield to my cosponsor, Commissioner de los
Reyes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: This is an amendment of Commissioners Padilla, Nolledo,

Rigos and this humble Member.
On page 2, Section 5, we propose to delete lines 26 to 32 and in lieu thereof
substitute simpler words to read as follows: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL
QUALIFY AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT. IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT DIES,
THE
VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT. That is the end of the
sentence.
Then; the second portion of the amendment will be proposed by
Commissioner Rigos.
MR. REGALADO: There was mention yesterday in the course of the
interpellations of the possibility of the President having died or becoming
permanently
incapacitated.
MR. DE LOS REYES: We can add that so the line reads: IF THE PRESIDENTELECT DIES OR BECOMES PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL BECOME
PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please read how this particular
portion of Section 5 will read now?
MR. DE LOS REYES: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL QUALIFY AT THE
BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY THE VICE-PRESIDENTELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT.
IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT DIES OR BECOMES INCAPACITATED THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT.
MR. DAVIDE: Under that particular proposal, we will have a Vice-President
who will become a permanent President because of failure to qualify.
However, the
President may later qualify. That is why the Vice President will only act until
the President shall have qualified.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No. the sentence is clear: IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY THE
VICE-PRESIDENT ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT.
MR. DAVIDE: It says, SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT?

MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Until the President shall have qualified?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is covered in the second amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: May we hear all the amendments to Section 5, so we will have
the total picture of the new Section 5?.
MR. DE LOS. REYES: I yield to Commissioner Rigos who will have the honor to
read the consolidated amendments.
MR. REGALADO: I think Commissioner Padilla has also some suggestions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that we called a recess in order that the
Commissioners involved could confer and just submit to the Committee a
consolidated substitute for Section 5.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President. we had a division of labor. Commissioners
Padilla and de los Reyes worked on the first portion of Section 5 and the rest
of us
worked on the latter portion of Section 5. I will now present the latter portion.
THE PRESIDENT: We will then request the Commissioners to consolidate their
labor because, as stated by Commissioner Davide, what is to be presented in
the
first portion should be guided also by what is in the latter portion or vice
versa.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, we do not have to consolidate the
amendments because there are two parts. Either amendment can stand on
its own.
MR. REGALADO: Since there are two parts with several sentences, could we
have them also reproduced in several copies to guide the other
Commissioners on
how to vote?
It was 10:41 a.m.
A t 10:58 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader, Commissioner Sarmiento, is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: This Member is now the Acting Floor Leader. I ask that
MR. JAMIR: Thank you, Madam President.
I propose to insert a new paragraph between the first and second paragraphs
of Section 4, on page 2, which reads: NO PERSON WHO HAS SERVED MORE
THAN THREE
YEARS AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE QUALIFIED FOR ELECTION TO THE SAME
OFFICE AT ANY TIME.
May I state my reasons very briefly. If the President dies, let us say, two
years after assuming office, and the Vice-President takes over, the
Vice-President will be serving for four years. In that case he cannot run for
election as President, according to my proposed amendment. But if the
President dies, let us say, three years after assuming office, then the VicePresident will serve for less than three years. In this case, he can run for
election as President. That is why I propose: NO PERSON WHO HAS SERVED
MORE THAN THREE YEARS AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE QUALIFIED FOR
ELECTION TO THE SAME
OFFICE AT ANY TIME.
MR. REGALADO: I notice that the amendment of Commissioner Jamir is
almost the same as the Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution,
ratified on March 1, 1951, which says:
No person who has held the office of President or acted as President for more
than three years of a term to which some other person was elected President
shall be elected to the office of the President in the next succeeding election.
MR. JAMIR: Substantially.

MR. REGALADO: But the Gentlemans proposal is for permanent
disqualification thereafter?
MR. JAMIR: Yes, because of the present proposals made by the Committee or
approved on the floor, which disqualify the President from being reelected.
MR. REGALADO: That amendment is substantially the same as the TwentySecond Amendment to the United States Constitution but prohibition therein
is only
with respect to the next succeeding election.
MR. JAMIR: The difference is that under the United States Constitution, the
President has eight years to serve, whereas under our present proposal there
is
no reelection whatsoever for the President.
MR. SUMULONG: If I remember right, Commissioner Rodrigo made that
proposal previously and that was acted upon by the Commission favorably.
MR. JAMIR: But there is none in the present proposal.
MR. SUMULONG: But I remember that there was a similar proposal made by
Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: May I clarify the matter. When we were discussing the Article
on the Legislative, I mentioned such a proposal and it seemed to be
acceptable
except that we decided to transfer it to the Article on the Executive, so it is
timely now to discuss that proposal.
MR. REGALADO: May I also inform Commissioner Jamir that our Rules will be
suspended; there is a proposal here to reopen that matter in Section 4 as to
whether the President shall not be eligible for immediate reelection or
whether it should be total prohibition from reelection. That has a sort of a
bearing also because as I pointed out, in the Commissioners proposal it will
also be a complete bar whereas under the American version, it is just for the
next succeeding election.
MR. JAMIR: In that case, I will wait until after the body has acted on that
proposal mentioned by the Commissioner.
MR. REGALADO: I think that is the proposal of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. JAMIR: So, for the time being, I am withdrawing my motion to insert until
the right time comes.
MR SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rama be
recognized for an anterior amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I have this anterior amendment after a
conference with the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the Executive and
the former Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, Commissioner Concepcion.
My proposed amendment is on page 1, Section lines 19 and 20. The proposal
is to provide a constitutional function for the Vice-President So we delete the
words may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet on lines 19 and 20
and in lieu thereof substitute the following: THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL BE
THE EX
OFFICIO PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. The reason for this is that we have to
address a problem that has existed for many years. All the Vice-President of
this
country had complained that they did not have any job. Because of their
joblessness a lot anomalies and aberrations had arisen. For instance, there
was one
Vice-President who did nothing but campaign all over the country for four
years against the President. Likewise, there was President Marcos who,
because of
this experience with the joblessness of the Vice-President. perceived the
Vice-President as a vulture whose main and only job is to wait for the
President
die. Mr. Marcos developed a phobia so that he did not want to create a
position for Vice-President. I think this anomaly can be solved now by the
Constitutional Commission by providing the Vice-President a constitution;
function such as ex officio President of the Senate. We should eliminate this
portion may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet because this is a
little derogatory to the Vice-President, but the argument proposed and set
forth by
Commissioner Bern. and the rest of the Committee members that the
President should not be compelled to appoint a Vice President as a Cabinet
member because
a Cabinet member is an alter ego of the President and he should not be
compelled to appoint somebody in whom he has no complete trust are
powerful
arguments. Therefore, we come up with the same problem that a VicePresident really does not have a function or a job to do. So I propose that we
give him
a constitutional function, the same function that is given to the VicePresident of the United States.
MR. RODRIGO: Will the Gentleman yield to a few questions?
MR. RAMA: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: In the beginning I was of the same thinking that the VicePresident should be the President of the Senate. However, may I ask the
proponent,
the person concerned is constitutionally the President of the Senate may he
be appointed to a Cabinet position?
MR. RAMA: Not anymore, because the position of Senate President is a very
high position and the matter of appointing him as a minister or a member of
the
Cabinet is really just an appointment at the pleasure of the President and
there is the principle that a minister is an alter ego of the President. Hence,
the President should not be compelled to appoint him as Cabinet member.
MR. RODRIGO: I know that. Madam President. So my next question is this: Let
us take the situation now of Vice-President Laurel. If we 11ave a
constitutional provision such as this, he would be the Presiding Officer or the
President of the Senate which is another powerless position. Now, which
will give Vice-President Laurel more power, his position as Minister of Foreign
Affairs or as President of the Senate or Presiding Officer of the Senate
with no right to vote except to break a tie?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the most important sit thing is that he is the
head of a powerful body. The Senate is next to the presidency which is the
highest office in the country. It determines the policies of the nation. Through
its powers, it determines even the decision to enter into treaties to a
certain extent. In the United States, the Vice-President is happy to have that
position of Senate President. It is much better than being a jobless
Vice-President or a minister of the Cabinet, where the position is subject to
the pleasure of the President.
MR. RODRIGO: As I said, I was of the same thinking until I started analyzing
the power of a President of the Senate. If a Vice-President is powerless, so
is the Presiding Officer of the Senate, especially if he cannot vote except in
case of a tie. He cannot even argue on the floor of the Senate. So, that is
my misgiving.
Are we not giving him another useless, inutile position? Is it not better or will
he not have more power being a member of the Cabinet?
I will give as an example, the case of Vice-President Laurel as Minister of
Foreign Affairs. I think he has more power than if he were a Presiding Officer
of the Senate .
MR. RAMA: Madam President I think former Senator Rodrigo has forgotten the
battles that they fought to get somebody to be Senate President. As a matter
of
fact, one of the strategies of President Marcos was precisely to capture that
very prestigious office of Senate President as a launching pad to become
President. That was his strategy and he was correct. The people in the
Senate would die just to get the presidency of the Senate. It may not have
tremendous power, but it has tremendous prestige.
MR. RODRIGO: A Senate President who is elected by the Senate from among
the Senators is powerful because he can vote in the Senate. He can yield the
Chair
to somebody else and go to the floor and argue. But the Vice-President as
honorary ex officio President of the Senate cannot do that. He can just
preside.
I do not know if he can vote in case of a tie. But he, certainly, cannot yield
the Chair to somebody else and come down and argue. He certainly cannot
file
bills motions and resolutions of his own. His is a purely honorary ex officio
function. That is why I changed my mind about such a constitutional
provision. I think we will just be giving the Vice-President two useless
positions.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say? May we have first the
reaction of the Committee to this particular amendment of Commissioner
Rama?
MR. SUMULONG: We would rather leave the decision to the Commission.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President. I would like to raise a point of order.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide may raise his point of order.
MR. DAVIDE: The Commission had adopted an earlier amendment reading as

follows: SUCH APPOINTMENT REQUIRES NO CONFIRMATION. The proposal
would, in effect,
call for a reconsideration of that approved amendment first before we could
add the proposed amendment.
MR. RAMA: That is correct, Madam President; so, may I ask for a
reconsideration of that decision.
THE PRESIDENT: Of lines 19 and 20?
MR. RAMA: I move to reconsider the approval of the amendment on lines 19
and 20 to the effect that the appointment of the Vice-President as a member
of the
Cabinet needs no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
MR. DAVIDE: I object to such a motion, Madam President, because that
amendment had already been approved. Moreover, I agree with the
contention of
Commissioner Rodrigo, and in addition thereto, I would state for the record
that if the Vice-President would be mandated to act as the ex officio
President
of the Senate in the event that he succeeds to the presidency, we will have a
Senate without any help.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote first.
MR. RAMA: I think that is the least of the problem, Madam President. Under
the Rules the Senate can always provide itself a head. That is not a big
problem.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Let us first vote whether or not we shall consider the
approval of the amendments to lines 19 and 20.
Those in favor of reconsidering lines 19 and 20 so as to make them open to
another proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised
their hand.)
Those against reconsideration, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 25 votes in favor and 4 against; the motion to reconsider is
approved.

THE PRESIDENT: May we just finish this particular item please?
MR. RAMA: On line 19, Section 3, after the words The Vice-President, insert
SHALL BE THE EX-OFFICIO PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE and delete the rest of
the
sentence: may be appointed as a member of the cabinet.
THE PRESIDENT: There have been sufficient discussions on this particular
point.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President. I would like to propose an amendment to
the amendment of Commissioner Rama.
MR. GUINGONA: I believe that the designation of the Vice-President as the ex
officio President of the Senate would involve him in the legislature and might
affect the principle of separation of powers to some extent. My amendment
would be to retain lines 19 and 20, as amended, and add: IF BEFORE THE
CONGRESS
CONVENES FOR ITS REGULAR SESSION. THE VICE-PRESIDENT IS NOT
NOMINATED OR, IF SO NOMINATED, HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE NOMINATION
AS MEMBER OF THE CABINET. THEN
HE WOULD BE EX OFFICIO SENATE PRESIDENT.
In other words we are giving the President the option to name the VicePresident as a member of his Cabinet. Then. we are giving the Vice-President
the
choice whether he would like to be a member of the Cabinet or Senate
President.
MR. RAMA: I regret I cannot accept Commissioner Guingonas amendment
because that will dilute the whole amendment.
MR. TINGSON: In connection with the subject of the 5 vice-presidency, I made
a manifestation yesterday which was suggested by Commissioner Bernas,
that I
will formulate an amendment towards dignifying more the office of the VicePresident and giving him something more definite to be included in our
Constitution; that is, a responsibility which he would take upon election
without necessarily putting it under the discretion of the President. So, I

would
like to tell the proponent of this amendment that I have a little amendment
to be presented in due time along these lines.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Commissioner has any amendment, now is the
appropriate time.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may we seek a clarification from
Commissioner Tingson since this is the matter under consideration. If I recall
correctly
yesterday, he toyed with the idea of the Vice-President being appointed as
the Ombudsman, am I correct?
MR. TINGSON: No, that was just made more in a spirit of a suggestion rather
than a substantial proposal.
MR. REGALADO: If the Vice-President should be appointed as the
Ombudsman will he still be eligible to be a member of the Cabinet?
MR. TINGSON: That would depend: as it is stated here in the committee
report. the President is given the privilege to appoint him. He may be
appointed as
member of the Cabinet.
MR. REGALADO: So, he could be appointed as the Ombudsman.
MR. TINGSON: If that would not run counter towards the executive
departments scheme, why not?
MR. REGALADO: We have a situation where three alternative positions for the
Vice-President are being proposed: either as ex officio President of the
Senate
or as a member of the Cabinet as the Ombudsman.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, in connection with the Ombudsman we have
certain qualifications for that position. and the Vice-President may not
possess the
qualifications of the Ombudsman as defined in the Constitution. That is
another problem to consider.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us go back to the Vice-President as President of the
Senate.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President. may I be recognized .
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized .

MR. BROCKA: Thank you, Madam President.
I just want to make an observation. We have been discussing particularly the
issue of looking for a job for the Vice-President. A Commissioner said to
appoint him as Ombudsman; another said to give him the position of the
Senate President. But I think we are all agreed here that it is a useless
position
in terms of functions. So, we do not know what to do with that particular
position. What happens is that the Vice-President is elected and he makes
use of
his term of six years or seven years to establish his credentials for the
position of the presidency. This may sound very naive but if our problem is
looking for a job for a position like the Vice-President, why do we not do away
with that position? (Laughter) It may sound very naive but I cannot
understand why we have been talking about what to do with the position. I
get the feeling now that the reason we have the Vice-President is that of
tradition. Could we not do something radical and revolutionary by doing
away with it? If we are thinking of who will replace the President in case of
incapacity, disability or death, then probably we can set up a mechanism
wherein the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives
...
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka, I had an inkling that was the idea
behind the Gentlemans mind.
THE PRESIDENT: There was a motion to reconsider the approval of the
amendment, which motion was approved by the body. May I ask
Commissioner Rama to please
state again his proposed amendment so as to make it clear in the minds of
the Commissioners. May we have the amendment now, Commissioner
Rama?
MR. RAMA: I would like to restate the amendment, Madam President. The
amendment concerns line 19, Section 3. After the words The VicePresident, insert
the following words: SHALL BE THE EX OFFICIO PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE.
The rest of the words may be appointed as a member of the cabinet
are deleted.
MR. JAMIR: I have a simple amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Jamir is recognized to propose an

amendment to the amendment.
MR. JAMIR: After the word SENATE, insert WITH RIGHT TO VOTE ONLY IN
CASE OF A TIE because I do not believe the internal rules of the Senate will
qualify
the Vice-President to vote in affairs . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted?
MR. RAMA: I regret I cannot accept that amendment. I think the Senate would
be able to provide its own rules on what to do with the Senate President
because they are the most affected.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment has not been accepted.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, I think they have finished the discussion.
May I have the floor?
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Gentleman going to object to the proposed
amendment?
MR. ABUBAKAR: Will the proposed amendment be clearly restated so that I
can see where I can fit? (Laughter)
MR. RAMA: For the third time, I will restate the amendment. On line 19, under
Section 3, after the words The Vice-President, insert the words SHALL BE
EX
OFFICIO PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. So, the whole sentence on line 19
would read: The Vice-President SHALL BE THE EX OFFICIO PRESIDENT OF
THE SENATE.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Abubakar objecting or does he want to
support the proposed amendment?
MR. ABUBAKAR: I would like to object to the amendment.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I would say that the proponent of the amendment would
really like to give an appropriate office to the Vice-President because he has
nothing
else to do. But let us not elevate the Vice-President to a position only
because it is open for him such as sitting in a body, presiding over Senators
when
he is not a Member of the Senate. Whatever his influence may be, he could
not adapt himself to the thinking, to the maneuver, to the other

contingencies
that might happen in the Senate.
In other words, he would not be an effective leader of the body. The President
of the Senate is elected by his peers in the Senate; so is the Speaker of
the House elected by his peers in the House. Then why would the Gentleman
insist on putting a stranger to the Senate just because he is Vice-president?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the most democratic country, America, has
adopted the same system and the people are happy with the results of the
system of the
Vice-President being the Senate President.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, may I answer the Gentleman? .
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. The matter has been sufficiently discussed and I
think the body is now ready to vote.
As many as are in favor of the amendment to make the Vice-President
President of the Senate, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
their hand.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, my amendment is on Section 8, page 3. My
amendment is to delete the words and House of Representatives on line 31
so that
the whole section will read: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the
Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, the President shall
nominate a Vice-President from among the members of the Senate who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members of both
Houses
of Congress.
May I explain my amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed; he is given five minutes.
MR. RODRIGO: This Section 8 has reference to a situation where the VicePresident dies. In such a case. according to this section, the President shall
nominate somebody to be the Vice-President, if confirmed by both Houses of
Congress.
The section as it is now gives the President the power to choose either from
the Senate or the House of Representatives. My amendment would limit the
choice of the President to the Members of the Senate.
The reasons are: First, a Vice-President is a national official; he is elected
nationwide by the people. I believe that the one who should be nominated to
succeed him should also be an official elected nationwide by the people. and
those are Senators. For example, if a Member of the House from Bulacan
with
four districts would be elected only by six municipalities, it would be
incongruous for such an elected official to be the Vice-President who has the
nationwide mandate of the people. Another reason is that the term of Office
of the Vice-President is six years; the term of office of the Senators is also
six years but the term of office of the Members of the House is only three
years. So, I believe it is logical and practical that the choice by the
President of who should succeed a Vice-president who dies should be limited
to Senators.
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee would leave the matter to the Commission.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I object to the amendment. I think the
choice should not be limited to the Senate which is only composed of 24
Senators.
In the House of Representatives, we have as many as 250 Members and the
President will have a wider choice. It really does not depend on whether one
is a
Member of the Senate or whether one is a Member of the House of
Representatives. A Member of the House of Representatives can have a
national outlook like
that of a Member of the Senate. Just because he was elected by
Representatives does not mean that he has a parochial outlook. An example
is our Commission.
If Members of this Commission. for example, are elected only by districts, we

have here Senate timbers or vice-presidential timbers who could also be
good
Vice-Presidents even if they are elected by districts. Therefore, by limiting
the choice to the Senate, we are actually limiting the choice of good men.
For these reasons, I respectfully object to the amendment.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Although I am speaking for myself, I think I will be speaking for
the sentiments of some members of the Committee. In the first place, I agree
with the position taken by Commissioner de los Reyes that we should not
limit the choice of Vice-President to a small group like the Senate of 94
people
and that there could be very good and experienced people in the House of
Representatives. Secondly, I am consistent with the original position I took
for
unicameralism in the desire that we give importance to a body which is
closer to the masses because of the fact that the Members of this body have
to
campaign more closely among the people.
MR. RODRIGO: We ask for a vote.
FR. BERNAS: We ask the body to vote on this.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Rodrigo want to say something?
MR. RODRIGO: I have said enough, Madam President. So, the amendment is
to delete the words and the House of Representatives on line 31 of page 3
so that
the section would read: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the
Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, the President shall
nominate a Vice-President from among the members of the Senate who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members of both
Houses
of Congress. So, even the Members of the House will vote.
VOTING
Senator Rodrigo, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
their hand.)
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized for an
anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized for an anterior
amendment.
MR. TINGSON: Again on the subject of the vice-presidency, I would like to add
a sentence on line 20, page 1, of the amended committee report. The
amendment
would be: THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HEAD THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL.
May I reason out my amendment?
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, members of the Committee, as I have
stated earlier, the office of the Vice-President should be vested with a
responsibility
as the next in rank in the pyramid of government. As such, he should hold an
office with a definite function and task that do not necessarily encroach on
the functions of the President. I agree with Commissioner Bernas
explanation that the Vice-Presidents appointment to the Cabinet is not
mandatory due to
the principle of qualified political agency. And human nature will tell us that
the President sometimes finds the presence of the Vice-President in his
office awkward since, as two contending stars, the Vice-President may steal
the glory from the President.
My concept, therefore, of the functional role of the Vice-President is that of
an entity that is independent, constitutionally mandated, relevant and of
national importance.
Let me, therefore, expound my idea based on the concept of the National
Security Council of the United States. As everyone knows, historically, United
States Presidents have relied on their Secretaries of State to handle the
questions of policy in international relations or had personally stepped in, as
Wilson and F.D. Roosevelt did, and did the job themselves. But the change in
the nature of foreign policy-making, the significance of trade and economic
aid programs, particularly the impossibility of treating diplomatic and military
decisions as if they had no bearing on each other was reflected in the
National Security Act passed by Congress in 1947. Under this statute was
established, the National Security Council headed by the President, and
including
the Vice-President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the
Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, and such agency heads as the
President may appoint to it or invite to attend the meetings.
Not that I am an expert in the United States or other foreign countries
policy-making, but based on my readings, among those invited in regular
attendance were the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Atomic Energy
Commission, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Budget, and
the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, among many other vital agencies
of the government.
The National Security Council has a full-time staff with a planning board
whose function is to clarify issues and present possible alternative courses of
action to the Council for consideration. Actually, the National Security Council
is more of an advisory body than a decision-making or operating one. In
our case, we can institutionalize perhaps the entity having a National
Advisory Council which can be headed by the Vice-President, not by the
President
himself, if only to give the Vice-President one definite and very important
position mandated in our Constitution uniquely for him.
Sectoral representations will also be fully enshrined in this body, if ever they
shall not be able to ventilate their ideas in interest in the legislature.
While the National Security Council of the United States was created by
statute, we can adopt a novel idea or view perhaps in our new Constitution
by
making it a creation of the Constitution like the Monetary Board or the NEDA.
My proposal then is to make the Vice-President much more effective because
he is next in line to the presidency of the Philippines and in case, indeed, he
takes over the national leadership, his will be a knowledgeable and effective
leadership.
MR. DE CASTRO: I object to the proposed amendment by Commissioner

Tingson on the ground that the President, our President, is the presiding
officer of the
National Security Council in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces. There are many, many important items concerning the
military and the
security of our nation that are to be decided by the National security Council.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President is the presiding officer of that
council.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. TINGSON: I am referring, of course, to a body known as the National
Advisory Council. It is just an advisory council but it is a council that will have
a full-time staff and a planning board. In a sense, the Vice-President, by
being the head of that National Advisory Council, will go through a period of
actual leadership training. Having been selected by the President himself to
run with him, we take it for granted that he has the confidence of the
President himself. And being the head of an advisory-council of national
importance, the office will be upgraded that much. In case the President dies
in
office God forbid the Vice-President will truly be a knowledgeable
leader, Madam President.
MR DE CASTRO: Madam President, I objected to the amendment because the
Gentleman was talking of the National Security Council. I understand it is the
National Advisory Council.
MR. TINGSON: I am sorry; I was referring not to the National Security Council
but to the National Advisory Council.
MR. DE CASTRO: We do not have a National Advisory Council at this time but
we have a National Security Council.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: In our effort to elevate the position of the vice-presidency, we
said that we should not make him Vice-President because that would not
really
elevate his position. Now we want to make him constitutional head of a
nonexisting advisory body. It seems to me that is even worse.
MR. TINGSON: Some of us naturally have to give our ideas here knowing or
half-knowing whether that body has already been incorporated in one of our
committee reports. If, indeed, it is a sensible suggestion, then probably the
answer would also sound sensible. Probably, the Committee would consider
the
suggestion on the National Advisory Council as another sensible idea now
being propounded . . . But let us not make the office of the Vice-President a
very
solitary one, an almost half-hearted kind of office, considering that we are all
agreed that it is important in case the President dies, almost
overnight, he automatically becomes our President.
MR. MAAMBONG: In order to intelligently vote on the subject matter, the
Committee would like to inform the body of the following facts. Under
Executive
Order No. 708 promulgated in 1981, the following bodies and entities, among
18 agencies, were under the chairmanship of the President of the Philippines:
The Council of Leaders, the Foreign Policy Council, the General Military
Council, the National Security Council, the National Economic and
Development
Authority and the Special Presidential Reorganization Committee. The
National Advisory Council mentioned by Commissioner Tingson is not here.
Assuming that
it was under the Office of the President which actually it was not we
also do not know whether Executive Order No. 708 has already been affected
by the
proposed reorganization being worked on presently by Minister Luis
Villafuerte. So, we really do not know as of this moment if a National
Advisory Council
exists. But definitely, under Executive Order No. 708 in 1981, there is no
such thing as a National Advisory Council.
MR. TINGSON: It seems to me that the idea of a National Advisory Council
would fit in in any kind of national revision of our governments scheme. I am
personally wondering why we are almost half-forgetting the Vice-President.
The idea is to propose, by way of an amendment, that a National Advisory
Council
be headed by the Vice-President.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the body is ready for a vote.
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, Madam President.
VOTING
Commissioner Tingson which has been sufficiently explained, please raise
their hand.
(One Member raised his hand.)
their hand.)
The results show one vote in favor and 26 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, the joint proposed amendment of VicePresident Padilla and Commissioners Nolledo, Rigos, de los Reyes,
Maambong and Davide
has been formulated. May I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, the proposed amendment on Section 5
has been distributed to the Members of this Commission and it reads as
follows: THE
PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL QUALIFY AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IF HE
HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENTELECT SHALL ACT AS
PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT DIES OR BECOMES PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE
VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT. WHERE NEITHER A PRESIDENT-ELECT NOR VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN OR SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED OR
BOTH SHALL HAVE DIED OR
BECOME PERMANENTLY DISABLED AT THE TIME FIXED FOR THE BEGINNING
OF THEIR TERMS, THE SENATE PRESIDENT OR, IN HIS ABSENCE, THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL THEN ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR
VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND QUALIFIED.
Although there is a footnote stating that assume office is more specific,

actually it is farfetched for a President-elect and a Vice-President-elect to
qualify and not assume office. I think it very rarely happens if it happens
at all and, therefore, we prefer to use the word qualified which has been
the word used in the 1935 Constitution, the 1973 Constitution and the
Election Code.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: The word qualify in political law and administrative law has
two meanings. One means to have the qualifications; the other is to assume
office to take the necessary action needed in order to actually assume the
office. It could mean taking the oath or posting a bond, depending upon the
nature of the office. To assume office makes it clear but I think the
jurisprudence on the meaning of the word qualify is quite clear also. So, I
would
not be inclined to change the word qualify because, I think, in
jurisprudence that has a clear meaning. What is meant here is to assume
office.
MR. REGALADO: To compromise on this choice of words and for the record, I
assume that it could be agreed that the word qualify as used in this
Section 5
means assumption of office.
I would like to ask a few questions of Commissioner de los Reyes on some
words. The amendment states: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL QUALIFY AT
THE BEGINNING
OF HIS TERM. IF HE HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE
VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT SHALL
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN
OR QUALIFIED.
I suggest that the word OR here should be changed to AND: UNTIL A
PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I agree.

MR. REGALADO: The next line says: IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT DIES OR
BECOMES PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL
BECOME PRESIDENT. WHERE
NEITHER A PRESIDENT-ELECT NOR VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE BEEN
CHOSEN OR SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED . . . Again, change the word OR to
AND.
MR. DE LOS REYES: AND QUALIFIED.
MR. REGALADO: AND SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED, OR BOTH SHALL HAVE DIED
OR BECOME PERMANENTLY DISABLED AT THE TIME FIXED FOR THE
BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS, THE
SENATE PRESIDENT, OR, IF HE IS UNABLE, instead of IN HIS ABSENCE
because he might just be temporarily out of the country.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I would like first to reply to Commissioner Regalado.
MR. FOZ: May I suggest that instead of the word QUALIFY on the first line,
we substitute TAKE HIS OATH OF OFFICE so that the sentence will read: THE
PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL TAKE HIS OATH OF OFFICE AT THE BEGINNING OF
HIS TERM.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think QUALIFY is the more embracing term and has an
established meaning in jurisprudence.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I am sorry, I think QUALIFY is better.
MR. REGALADO: Besides, Section 6 is already clear on that. It reads:
Before he enters on the execution of his office, the President or Acting
President shall take the following oath or affirmation.
MR. FOZ: The second sentence reads: IF HE HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF
HE FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL
A PRESIDENT SHALL
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED as suggested by Commissioner
Regalado. I think there are some words missing before the word
QUALIFIED. Maybe, the missing
words are OR HAVE; otherwise, there is an ungrammatical construction.
Anyway, it is a matter of style, I suppose.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide was seeking to be recognized.
The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: My comment is on the proposed Committee amendment to
change the word OR to AND because CHOSEN and QUALIFIED would
refer to two
different situations: one, where the President-elect fails to qualify, or the
President-elect has not been chosen. So, if we put AND in lieu of OR, we
destroy the two concepts.
FR. BERNAS: But the thing is, the office is not filled until he is both chosen
and qualified.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct.
FR. BERNAS: So, if either one is missing, the office is vacant, and we have a
situation where the office has to be filled.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Davide satisfied?
MR. DAVIDE: I am satisfied with the explanation, but that is really the
meaning there. It would have reference to the two instances where there was
failure
to qualify and there was failure to choose.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized?
In the proposed draft for Section 5 of the Honorable de los Reyes, he
employed the phrase BECOMES PERMANENTLY DISABLED. I suppose this
would refer to a
physical disability, or does it also include mental disability?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It includes all kinds of disabilities which will disable or
incapacitate the President or Vice-President from the performance of his
duties.
And who would determine the permanent disability of the President-elect?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think that is covered in subsequent articles. I think the
same principles will apply.
MR. SUAREZ: Meaning, is it himself or the Cabinet?
MR. DE LOS REYES: As provided in the subsequent articles.
MR. SUAREZ: And is there any period whereby the permanent disability
should be determined in the case of the President-elect because, according
to the
first sentence, he is under obligation to qualify or assume office at the
beginning of his term?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes. So, if he is permanently disabled . . . permanent is
permanent. It has no definite period.
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is forever.
MR. SUAREZ: No. What I am referring to is the period when the Vice-President
should assume office, referring only to the so-called permanent disability.
Let us say that the President-elect, under sentence one of the proposed
Section 5, would have to assume office on January 1, 1987. But because of
some
disability, he is unable to assume office from the beginning of his term. That
disability turns out to be permanent in character after a while. So. is
there no duration for the determination as to whether or not the Presidentelect from the time he should have assumed office at the beginning of his
term
up to the time he is declared permanently disabled in order that the VicePresident-elect can immediately assume the presidency?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There are two situations: If the President-elect has not
been chosen or has failed to qualify, the Vice-President-elect simply acts as
President. So, there will be an election for President. But if the President-elect
dies or becomes permanently disabled, that is no longer simply failing
to qualify or not having been chosen; he actually dies or becomes
permanently disabled. The Vice-President then shall become permanent
President up to the
expiration of the term of the regular President. That is how I understand it.
MR. SUAREZ: So, under the example I have given, if the President-elect for
one reason or another would not assume office or would not qualify on
January 3,
for example, then the Vice-President-elect should automatically assume
office as President?
MR. DE LOS REYES: He shall act as President in case he fails to qualify or he
has not been chosen at the beginning of the term. That is covered by the
first sentence.
MR. SUAREZ: Again, just to be clear, I will get a little closer to the date. Let
us say, the President-elect is supposed to begin his term on January I and
he fails to take his oath or assume office on January 1. So, on the midnight of
January I or January 2, the Vice- President-elect should already assume
office as acting President. Is my understanding correct in interpreting this
Section 5?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President. one question for Commissioner de los Reyes.
The first sentence of the consolidated amendment provides that the
President-elect
shall qualify at the beginning of his term. We want to be clarified on the word
shall; we take it to be mandatory. If he does not, can that be
interpreted as abandonment of office?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If he does not qualify . . .
FR. BERNAS: Yes, or refusal to assume office in which permanent vacancy is
created.
MR. DE LOS REYES: If he tails to qualify . . .
FR. BERNAS: Maybe the President shall qualify. Suppose he does not assume
office, is that abandonment of office or refusal to assume office which makes
the
office vacant?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If he does not want to assume office, that can be
construed as abandonment of office. There is no other interpretation.
FR. BERNAS: We could have a problem there. In other words, perhaps we
should specify what beginning of the term means. If on the very first day
he does
not assume, he does not qualify. is that already abandonment of office or
refusal to assume office?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The question is that if he is qualified but does not
assume office.
FR. BERNAS: He does not assume office. He was chosen; he has all the
qualifications but he does not follow this command in the first sentence
which tells
him that he shall qualify at the beginning of his term.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Insofar as Section 5 is concerned. I would say that the
Vice-President can start acting as President. But whether that will be
abandonment of office. I think there are several variables which can be
decided only on a case-to-case basis. When we say abandonment, we should
take into
consideration the intent of the public official whether he would really
abandon the office or whether 11e could not assume office for one reason or
another but may have the intention to assume it later on. That is only my
personal opinion.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President. I would like to ask a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Bernas satisfied with the explanation?
FR. BERNAS: In other words, so long as the intention is clear that the mere
failure to qualify, let us say, on the first day should not be interpreted as
abandonment of office or refusal to assume office, the language now is
subject to that interpretation. In the original language. I think it was not.
THE PRESIDENT: We will just finish with the Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: Perhaps I could help a little if we will resolve the problem in
relation to the second sentence because the second sentence cites a
situation
where a President-elect has not been chosen or he fails to qualify. In other
words, a President-elect who is well and hearty and in total possession of his
faculties should qualify at the beginning of his term, but if for one reason or
another he fails to qualify, then I assume the second sentence would apply
and in that case the Vice-President shall only act as President.
The reason why the President-elect failed to qualify is another thing; it may
be that he does not really want to take the office or it may be that he is
prevented by some insuperable cause. But just the same, what I am saying is
that we just have to apply the second sentence in that regard, which means
that
whatever the reason he did not qualify, we will apply the fact that he failed
to qualify and the Vice-President will have to act as President.
FR. BERNAS: But then the sentence goes on to say, UNTIL A PRESIDENT
SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, in which case we are opening the possibility
that in fact a
permanent vacancy was created.
MR. MAAMBONG: UNTIL THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND
QUALIFIED means that there is a President who has been chosen but has
not qualified. That
means the first part of the second sentence will apply that he has been
chosen but failed to qualify.
That is just my interpretation, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: But the first sentence already assumes that he was chosen; the
only thing is he did not qualify.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: That is why I think the original language avoids this one.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, just a few questions for the record for
clarification.
If the Senate President takes over because of the death or disability of both
the President and the Vice-President, does he lose his position as Senate
President?
MR. REGALADO: While he is acting as President.

MR. RODRIGO: And he does not lose his position as Senator either?
MR. REGALADO: I think he does not because he is only acting as President.
MR. RODRIGO: So, after a President or a Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified, the Senate President goes back to the Senate as, first
of
all, a member of the Senate and secondly, as Senate President, unless the
Senate had elected somebody else. Am I correct?
MR. REGALADO: That is my interpretation, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: And the same is true of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives?
MR. REGALADO: The same interpretation.
MR. FOZ: In response to the previous question as to whether in case the
President-elect fails to qualify at the beginning of his term will mean
abandonment
of his office, I think there is a rule in the law of public officers that the date
that a public officer should qualify is expressly stated as in this
case; if he fails to qualify, then he is deemed to have abandoned the office.
But in this case, after the first sentence, it is clear that the subsequent
provisions expressly provide that in case of failure to qualify, the VicePresident shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen or
have
qualified. Therefore, there is no abandonment of office.
FR. BERNAS: If I may propose a change to the language presented, the first
two sentences shall read: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL QUALIFY AT THE
BEGINNING OF
HIS TERM. IF HE HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE
VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE PRESIDENTELECT SHALL HAVE
QUALIFIED. We just drop the word CHOSEN to suggest that it is not a
question of choosing another President but just waiting for the one already
chosen
to qualify.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So under that concept, there will be no more need for an
election of a new President but the same President.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Because if it involves the election of another President, it
will fall under the subsequent sentences. ..
FR. BERNAS: That is correct.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I will accept the suggestion of Commissioner Bernas.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just one more point which I would like to clarify. When the
proponent used the word CHOSEN, I would assume that that is the point in
the
electoral process where the President-elect is proclaimed. Is that the correct
interpretation Madam President? The electoral process goes like this: First,
we have the election at large done by the people; then there is the canvass
and proclamation of the votes during which time we say that the President
has
been chosen. We are referring to the point in time when the votes have been
canvassed and the President-elect has been proclaimed by the proper
canvassing
authority. That is the meaning of the word CHOSEN. Is that the meaning,
Madam President?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I was distracted.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will repeat the question because I feel this is important.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, please.
MR. MAAMBONG: The meaning of the word CHOSEN has harassed several
law students before in the past. In the electoral process, we start with the
election.
The election is being participated in by people at large. After the election,
there is the canvass of votes and proclamation. When the Gentleman used
the
term CHOSEN in this section, is he actually referring to the proclamation?
MR. DE LOS REYES: To that point in time.

MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, that point in time.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. REGALADO: And I think that is solved by the word President-elect
because he could not be referred to as President-elect unless he has been
proclaimed.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: This is just a matter of style. In the phrase OR BOTH
SHALL HAVE DIED, I think there is a missing word. It should be OR WHERE
BOTH
SHALL HAVE DIED. After SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED OR WHERE BOTH SHALL
HAVE DIED OR BECOME PERMANENTLY DISABLED, the phrase AT THE TIME
FIXED FOR THE
BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS is a little ambiguous. I wonder if we could
rephrase it with the phrase ON OR BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is a matter of style. We already understand the
meaning of AT THE TIME FIXED FOR THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS and
these have
always been the words used in the previous constitutions.
MR. REGALADO: It is on the beginning of their terms.
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is clear at the time fixed from the beginning of their
terms because the law fixes the terms of elected public officials.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, on lines 2 and 3 of the amendment by
substitution, we can eliminate the phrase HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF
HE. In other
words, if he fails to qualify, then the Vice-President-elect shall act as
President until the President-elect shall have qualified. The phrase HAS NOT
BEEN CHOSEN OR IF HE should be eliminated because it is understood that
Section 5 follows Section 4. There has already been a proclamation and he
has been
chosen.
In my original suggestion, I did not have that phrase. I merely suggested:
THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL QUALIFY AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IF
HE FAILS TO
QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE
PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED. That was our original amendment, but
we conferred with
Commissioners Maambong and Davide who made some distinctions about
CHOSEN and QUALIFIED. So, I think they should answer the question.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, it was actually Commissioner Davide
who caused all these confusions, so he should untangle it.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to explain why the word CHOSEN must
appear there?
MR. DAVIDE: It might happen that in a presidential election, a President may
not have been chosen at all. There may be a failure of election for the
President, but not for the Vice-President.
Qualification there presupposes a candidate who had actually been elected
but failed to qualify. So, that is another area. The other is, failure of the
election of a President but a Vice-President is elected. So, in that particular
respect, we allow the Vice-President to act as President until a President
shall have been chosen accordingly. That is the wording of the 1973
Constitution. So, there are two separate instances: first, mere failure to
qualify; and
second, the failure to really choose a President.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, this Section 5 follows Section 4. And under
Section 4, the President and the Vice-President have already been elected.
The
electoral returns have already been verified. There has been proclamation of
those elected.
So, this Section 5 refers to the President-elect and the Vice-President elect. It
should really be simple. If the President-elect fails to qualify, then
the Vice- President-elect shall act as President until the President shall have
qualified. The sections all refer to the President and Vice-President who
have already been elected, proclaimed and, therefore, chosen.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the comment of Commissioner Davide in case
there is a failure of election and no one has been chosen?
MR. PADILLA: That might come under the second sentence which states:
WHERE NEITHER A PRESIDENT-ELECT NOR A VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN OR
SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED. Then the Senate President or, if he is unable, the
Speaker of the House shall then act as President until a President or
Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. So, that situation is
covered by the second sentence. The first sentence refers to a Presidentelect
who, for some reason, fails to qualify. The provision merely says that the
Vice-President-elect shall act as President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the main sponsor, Commissioner de los Reyes,
say?
MR. DE LOS REYES: In the light of all the views given, the proposed
amendment will read as follows, Madam President: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL QUALIFY AT
THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IF HE HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN, OR IF HE FAILS
TO QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL
THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED. IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT DIES OR BECOMES
PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT.
WHERE NEITHER A PRESIDENT
ELECT NOR A VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND HAVE
QUALIFIED, OR WHERE BOTH SHALL HAVE DIED OR BECOME PERMANENTLY
DISABLED AT THE TIME FIXED
FOR THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS, THE SENATE PRESIDENT, OR IF HE IS
UNABLE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL THEN
ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL
A PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND
QUALIFIED.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the proposal of Commissioner Padilla is not being
considered?
MR. PADILLA: Will Commissioner de los Reyes yield to a suggestion to
eliminate the phrase HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF HE on lines 2 and 3,
and simply say:
IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am now speaking as one of the proponents. After the
explanation of Commissioner Davide, I am more inclined to agree with the
statement of
Commissioner Davide that it is indeed necessary that the words IF HE HAS
NOT BEEN CHOSEN remain in the Article.
MR. DE LOS REYES: What shall we vote on, the suggestion of Commissioner
Padilla . . .?
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner de los Reyes accept the amendment of
Commissioner Padilla?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is not that I am not accepting the amendment because
I share the same view as Commissioner Padillas, but when we consolidated
the
amendments with the assistance of Commissioners Davide and Maambong,
the word CHOSEN was inserted. That is why I leave this to the body for
decision.
MR. MAAMBONG: I think we should ask the opinion of the Committee on this.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, what is the opinion of the Chairman?
MR. REGALADO: The opinion of the Committee, Madam President, is that if
we leave that phrase IF HE HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF HE FAILS TO
QUALIFY there,
it does not change the meaning anyway. In fact, it may provide for a future
contingency envisioned by Commissioner Davide. Even if it stays there, it
does
not affect the fact that he should be chosen and qualified.
MR. PADILLA: This Section 5 follows Section 4, that the President-elect and
the Vice-President have already been chosen. The first sentence only
contemplates the unusual situation where the President-elect fails to qualify.
The fact that there may be some occasion about being chosen is covered by
the second sentence. So, I suggest we vote on my amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, before we vote, may I ask a question?

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo may proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: The fourth sentence states: WHERE NEITHER A PRESIDENTELECT NOR A VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN OR HAVE
QUALIFIED . . . Is it
not a fact that a President-elect and a Vice-President-elect are already
chosen that is why they are called elect?
THE PRESIDENT: As the Chair sees it, the second sentence refers to a
situation where the President-elect has not been chosen. So, it is not really
covered
by this other sentence WHERE NEITHER A PRESIDENT ELECT . . .
MR. RODRIGO: But it will have something to do with my voting because I am
looking at the section as a whole.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the difference of opinion on this particular Section
5, we will ask again the Commissioners concerned to confer about this so
maybe we can suspend the session at this particular time.
Before we do so, we wish to acknowledge the presence of our guests who
compose a fact-finding good will mission to the Philippines and whose names
have
been circulated to all of you. So, we welcome you and we hope you will have
a fruitful visit. (Applause) We invite you to lunch so that you will have time
to meet with our Commissioners, as you desire.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move for a suspension of the session
until two-thirty this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 12:27 p.m.
At 2:38 p.m., the session was resumed

MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the proposed amendment is supposed to be
on Section 8. On Section 8, page 4, the following amendments are sought to
be
introduced: Instead of take on line 1, use the word ASSUME, and after
Congress on line 2, add the following words: VOTING SEPARATELY.
MR. SUMULONG: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Is there any objection to these proposed
amendments on lines 1 and 2 of page 4 which have been accepted by the
Committee?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I just ask Commissioner Davide a
clarificatory question?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, if it is to be voted separately, what
happens if the House of Representatives confirmed the nomination while the
Senate
votes otherwise?
MR. DAVIDE: What will happen is he cannot assume the office.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, we will have a case where the Senate, having its own
candidate from the Senate, rejects a nominee of the President who is a
Member of
the House of Representatives. If the President nominates a Member of the
Senate who is not acceptable to the House of Representatives, the House of
Representatives can likewise reject the nominee.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, the proposal of the Gentleman is for the
Congress to be in joint session?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think that is preferable.
MR. DAVIDE: Then, let me finish. The voting will be by all, and it is necessary
to get the majority vote of all.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, I think that is the better procedure.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RODRIGO: That has never been done during my 12 years in the Senate.
Whenever we have a joint session, the House and the Senate vote separately
be cause
otherwise the Senators are outnumbered by the Members of the House.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Gentleman say to that?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, that is exactly the reason I have not yet
accepted the proposal. I was only asking the intention of Commissioner de
los Reyes.
Under my proposal, if one House cannot give a concurrence by a majority
vote for a confirmation, then the President will have to choose another and
submit
the name of that other fellow, the contemplation being that each House shall
really vote separately.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner de los Reyes insist?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, I am not even objecting to the amendment of
Commissioner Davide. I am just pointing out that it could happen that none
will be
acceptable to both Houses, if both Houses become more or less partisan in
their election. But if the purpose is to find an acceptable Member of either
House until both Houses are forced to agree, then I have no objection to the
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment has been accepted by the
Committee.
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 9, page 4, between the words President and or, I
seek the insertion of the following: AND SUCH OFFICER SHALL ACT
ACCORDINGLY, UNTIL
THE DISABILITY OF THE PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT BE REMOVED, OR
UNTIL THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE VICE-PRESIDENT. So, the
entire line will read:
which officer shall then become Acting President AND SUCH OFFICER SHALL
ACT ACCORDINGLY, UNTIL THE DISABILITY OF THE PRESIDENT OR VICEPRESIDENT BE
REMOVED, OR UNTIL THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE VICEPRESIDENT, or the manner in which one shall be selected.
MR. REGALADO: Will the Commissioner state the page and the line again for
the benefit of the other Commissioners?
MR. DAVIDE: On page 4, line 9 with the proposed amendment will now read
as follows: which officer shall then become Acting President AND SUCH
OFFICER
SHALL ACT ACCORDINGLY, UNTIL THE DISABILITY OF THE PRESIDENT OR
VICE-PRESIDENT BE REMOVED, OR UNTIL THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
OR VICE-PRESIDENT, or the
manner in which one shall be selected.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we be recognized?
Does Commissioner Davide not think that his proposal is no longer necessary
because this particular sentence assumes a permanent disability, death,
removal
from office or resignation? In other words, the vacancy is permanent.
MR. DAVIDE: No, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: It does not contemplate a return of the permanently disabled,
Madam President.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I believe my amendment on this section can
be considered as an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Commissioners amendment have reference to this
one? So as not to break the line of thought of Section 9, may we consider the
amendment later?
MR. SUAREZ: So may we respectfully suggest that Commissioner Davide
withdraw the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: I am willing to drop the clause UNTIL THE DISABILITY OF THE
PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT BE REMOVED. So I will read again as
amended.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide kindly read from line 6?

MR. DAVIDE: The Congress shall by law provide for the case of permanent
disability, death, removal from office or resignation of both the President and
Vice-President, declaring which officer shall then be come Acting President
AND SUCH OFFICER SHALL ACT ACCORDINGLY, UNTIL THE ELECTION OF THE
PRESIDENT OR
VICE-PRESIDENT, or the manner in which one shall be selected.
MR. MAAMBONG: The Committee, in fact, has received the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Rigos, and I wonder if Commissioner Davide
would allow
Commissioner Rigos to proceed with his amendment with the concurrence of
the Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us hear Commissioner Rigos if he wants to delete the
whole section.
REV. RIGOS: I am proposing to substitute it with a new provision which I will
read, Madam President.
REV. RIGOS: The suggested substitute provision will read as follows: IN CASE
OF PERMANENT DISABILITY, DEATH, REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OR
RESIGNATION OF BOTH THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT, THE SENATE PRESIDENT OR, IN HIS
ABSENCE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL THEN
ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND
QUALIFIED.
This is related to the other proposed amendment that the Commission still
has to act upon on Section 5, pages 2 to 3. The members of the Committee
have
copies of this proposed amendment.
MR. REGALADO: For the benefit of all the Commissioners here, we have
caused a reformulation of Section 5 with the assistance of the different
sponsors, and
which is now being reproduced for distribution to all the Commissioners so

that they can follow the discussion. If Commissioner Rigos says that this also
has reference to Section 5, then we request that we defer consideration of
any proposed amendment to Section 9 until we have had reviewed and
voted upon
Section 5 because that may involve and affect the provisions in Section 9. He
and Commissioner Davide can get together thereafter so that they can be
coauthors of a proposed amendment.
REV. RIGOS: I agree, Madam President.
SARMIENTO. Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
BISHOP BACANI: I beg the indulgence of the Committee since I was absent
this morning. May I propose an amendment on Section 7, page 3, line 21
which reads,
The President and Vice-President shall receive a salary to be fixed by law. I
would like to substitute the words fixed by law with DETERMINED by law,
the reason being that I would like to ask that the salary of the President not
be fixed, to take account of possible high rates of inflation afterwards.
The succeeding sentence which says, They shall not receive during their
tenure of office any other emolument from the government or any other
source is,
therefore, retained. I would, however, suggest that it be deleted and
transferred to the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution. The amended
section
will now read: The President and Vice-President shall receive a salary to be
DETERMINED by law. They shall not receive during their tenure of office any
other emolument from the government or any other source.
In places like Italy, salary adjustments among government employees are
made automatic when there is an inflation. So it may not be good to fix the
salary
of the President, but just to have it determined by law, and that future
determination may be made such that for every rate of inflation, there will be
a
corresponding increase in the salary of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the proposed amendment on
line 21 ?

MR. MONSOD: Madam President, in connection with this, there was an
omnibus motion to correct the sections that specify salaries and precisely to
use the
phrase shall be determined by law. I thought we had agreed that the
Transitory Provisions will provide for the starting salaries. In that way we
resolve
all the remuneration provisions in the Constitution.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. My amendment will then be according to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani desires to change the word fixed to
DETERMINED. Is this acceptable to the Committee?
Is there any objection on the part of the Committee to change the word
fixed on line 21 to DETERMINED?
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts the amendment, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, is the Commissioner also deleting the clause
which shall not be increased or decreased during their term of office?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Madam President, because my understanding is that
the law itself later on will provide for an automatic increase or decrease, as
the
case may be, in case of inflation or deflation.
MR. MONSOD: In the omnibus amendment we agreed to harmonize the
resolutions; therefore, we would say, shall not be decreased during their
term of office.
BISHOP BACANI: I will be agreeable to that.
THE PRESIDENT: So how will the sentence read now?
BISHOP BACANI: The President and Vice-President shall receive a salary to
be DETERMINED by law which shall not be decreased during their term of
office.
MR. SUMULONG: Madam President.

MR. SUMULONG: We cannot accept deleting the clause which shall not be
increased or decreased during their term of office.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Bacani seeking to delete that?
BISHOP BACANI: Only the part which says, or decreased during their term of
office. In other words, the salary can be increased, but not decreased.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, this limitation on the power to decrease the
salaries is put in there precisely to protect the independence of the President
from the legislature.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. Therefore, it cannot be decreased.
FR. BERNAS: It cannot be decreased.
THE PRESIDENT: It cannot be decreased.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, that is the one that should not be deleted.
MR. MONSOD: I am sorry, but in the omnibus resolution, we said salaries
shall not be decreased but we also said that any increase shall not be
applicable
to the incumbent. We leave it to the Committee on Style to harmonize all the
resolutions to the effect.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, may I just simplify my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but we are concerned now with the Office of the
Executive.
MR. RODRIGO: I am the Chairman of the Committee on Style and I did not
know that this matter would be left to the discretion of the Committee. This
is not
merely a matter of style; this involves substance. For example, if my
Committee should delete the clause which shall not be decreased during
their term of
office, we would be changing the substance and that is not within our
power.
Madam President, this amendment would embrace not only the salaries of
the President and the Vice President but also the salaries of many other
officials
the members of the Supreme Court; justices of the Intermediate Court of
Appeals; those in the constitutional offices and others. So, let us lay down a
general principle a general rule for all. The issue or the question is: In all
these offices, whether in the Supreme Court, in the Congress or in the
constitutional commissions, should we leave it entirely to the Congress to
determine how much their Members would receive, and whether these
salaries be
increased or decreased even during their tenure or term of office? Should we
maintain the present provision of the Constitution, restricting the powers of
Congress to either decrease or increase these salaries?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, I recall that Commissioner Monsod was
the original Proponent of that uniform rule with respect to salaries and with
respect
to what would be placed in the Transitory Provisions.
May we ask Commissioner Monsod if he has a copy of his original proposal
which applies to all officers, plus his formulation of what he expected to be
placed in the Transitory Provisions, so that there will be an equal application
and a uniform rule?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just defer this matter for a few
minutes and take up other matters? I will look for the formulation.
THE PRESIDENT: May we call on Commissioner Bacani again later?
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Jamir be
My amendment is with respect to Section 6, appearing on page 3 of the
Committees draft. On line 8, I propose to change the word he to THEY and
eliminate
the letter s in enters and change the word his to THEIR. On line 9, after
the word President, put a comma (,) and add THE VICE-PRESIDENT OR THE
ACTING PRESIDENT shall take the following oath or affirmation:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill
my duties as President (or the VICE-PRESIDENT or the ACTING PRESIDENT)
of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution . . .
In other words, the amendment consists of adding the words VICEPRESIDENT to the pertinent portions of the draft so that the oath provided
herein should be
used by all of the three officers mentioned: the President, the Vice-President
and the Acting President.
May I know the response of the Committee, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: what does the Committee say?
MR. SUMULONG: E accept the amendment. Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that we put this to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Jamir which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rigos be
recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I propose to delete the entire Section 10 on
page 4, and in lieu thereof, substitute the following proposed provision: IN
CASE
OF VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OCCURRING AT LEAST
EIGHTEEN MONTHS BEFORE THE REGULAR ELECTION, THE SAME SHALL BE
FILLED BY SPECIAL ELECTION TO
BE CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND THE PRESIDENT THUS ELECTED SHALL SERVE FOR THE UNEXPIRED
TERM.
MR. REGALADO: May we ask Commissioner Rigos if we can have that
proposed amendment by substitution reproduced so that copies can be
distributed.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I just wish to make a slight correction or

manifestation for the record. In this portion of the oath on line 15, Section
6,
the phrase execute its laws does not apply to the Vice-President until he
assumes the office of President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee Chairman have no objection to the
insertion?
MR. SUMULONG: We have no objection, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So let the proper insertion be made.
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, my amendment is on Section 11, pages 5
to 6. May I explain the purpose of my amendment.
According to Section 11, if a majority of the members of the Cabinet transmit
to the President of the Senate or to the Speaker of the House a written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office, then the Vice-President takes over the duties of the President
and he becomes Acting President. Then subsequently, if the President
transmits a message to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker
declaring that
no inability exists, then the President takes over. Then within five days, the
majority of the members of the Cabinet may again send a written
communication stating that the President is incapable, and in that case,
Congress will make an investigation and will make a decision.
But it is not clear in this provision who will act as President during the time
that Congress is making the investigation and arriving at a decision. As a
matter of fact, if we were to read the end of the section, it would appear that
the Vice-President would also be the one in charge during the time that
Congress is making its studies. However, during my interpellation, the
Committee said that that was not their intention. That the intention of the
Committee is to have the President act as President during the time that
Congress is studying the matter.
And so that is the purpose of my amendment. I explained it because my
amendment would consist of just changing a few words, a few punctuation
marks, and
might not be understood if I did not make this preliminary explanation. On
page 5, line 21, after the words duties of his office, I propose to place a
period (.), to delete unless and instead substitute the words MEANWHILE,
SHOULD.
Then on line 26, after the word office, change the period (.) to a comma (,)
and delete the word thereupon. On page 6, line 3, delete the words
continue to discharge, and instead place the word ASSUME. On line 4,
delete the word resume, and instead place the word CONTINUE. The whole
paragraph
will now read: Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of
his office. MEANWHILE, SHOULD a majority of all the members of the Cabinet
transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall
decide the issue, convening within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if not
in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter
written declaration or, if not in session, within twenty-one days after it
is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of
Congress that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of
his
office, the Vice-President shall ASSUME the same as Acting President;
otherwise, the President shall CONTINUE the powers and duties of his office.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, before the Committee makes its decision
on whether to accept the amendment or subject it to a vote on the floor,
may I
verify some points. Line 31 on page 5 says: determines by a two-thirds vote
of both Houses of Congress that the President is unable to discharge; . Does
the Gentleman envision the voting of the two Houses of Congress here as
voting in joint session or voting separately?
MR. RODRIGO: Voting separately, yes., May propose that on page 6, line 1,
after the word Congress, we place a comma (,) and insert VOTING
SEPARATELY and
another comma (,).
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, may I suggest that instead of using the word
MEANWHILE, we use the word HOWEVER.
MR. RODRIGO: The word HOWEVER seems to denote a contrary situation
and it follows very closely the sentence where the President is the Acting
President.
And so, if we follow this sentence with HOWEVER, it might denote that the
President is no longer the one who continues to act but the Vice-President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is asked to read the entire paragraph
with his proposed amendments.
MR. RODRIGO: Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of
his office. MEANWHILE, SHOULD a majority of all the members of the Cabinet
transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall
decide the issue, convening within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if not
in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter
written declaration or, if not in session, within twenty-one days after it
is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of
Congress, VOTING SEPARATELY, that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall ASSUME the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall CONTINUE the powers and
duties of his office.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just on a matter of style, after all, it is
addressed to the Chairman of the Committee on Style may we say on line
4, the
President shall CONTINUE EXERCISING the powers and duties of his office?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move that we put the matter to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular amendment which
has been accepted by the committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment
is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Guingona
be recognized for an anterior amendment.
May I say that for this proposed amendment I have the following as my
coproponents: the honorable Commissioners Regalado, Maambong, Davide,
Ople and
Rodrigo. I refer to page 5, Section 10, lines 2 to 4, and the amendment is to
change the word seventy to ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY so that the last
sentence
will read as follows: No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs
within ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY days before the date of the next
presidential election.
THE PRESIDENT: How many days did the Gentleman propose?
MR. GUINGONA: One hundred and eighty days, Madam President.
REV. RIGOS: There is a pending motion to delete the entire paragraph, but if
Commissioner Guingona could wait, we would appreciate it very much.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask if Commissioner Guingona is willing to defer this
amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Ople be
recognized.
I propose to insert a new section to be numbered Section 11, immediately
prior to Section 12 on page 6, line 6, and which shall read: IN CASE OF
SERIOUS
ILLNESS OF THE PRESIDENT THE PUBLIC SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE STATE
OF HIS HEALTH THROUGH THE MINISTER OF HEALTH OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY. THE CABINET
MEMBER IN-CHARGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS AND
THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES DURING
SUCH TIMES SHALL NOT BE
DENIED ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
May I briefly explain the reason for this amendment, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: I think throughout history, there had been many recorded
instances when the health of the President, or the emperor in Roman times,
or the
Chinese emperor in dynasties long past was concealed from the public.
Generally, the wife conspires with others in order to conceal the leaders
state of
health. One effect of this has been on the necessary inputs to policy coming
from Cabinet ministers which have been blocked from reaching the attention
of
the President in that state. This illness can occur during an awkward moment
in the life of a nation when national survival ought to be secured in the face
of a major threat short of, let us say, the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus when Congress comes in in order to
exercise a monitoring function and, perhaps, a remedial function. We have
not yet, in this example, attained that level of the seriousness of the
situation. And yet the national security might be at stake. The national
survival can hang in the balance and, therefore, the right of the people to
know
ought to be included in this Article on the Executive, not only the right of the
people to urgent access to a President in a state of illness, but
especially those who deal with the safety and survival of the nation. The
Cabinet minister in charge of national security and foreign relations and the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces ought to have access to the President as
commander-in-chief. The people as well should have access to this man in
that
kind of dubious state so that even in that critical and awkward moment in
the fortunes of the national leader, we can be sure that the people have
access
to him for purposes of safeguarding the national security. That is the reason
the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces is also mentioned in the proposal. I
think this is based on contemporary experience as well. And if we delegate
this merely to a forthcoming legislature, there will arise situations or
embarrassment considering that many who will compose this legislature will
be very deferential towards those in power and may not even mention this at
all
in their agenda.
Therefore, I feel that there should be a constitutional cognizance of that
danger, and the right of the people to know ought to be built into this Article
on the Executive.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Gentleman yield to only one question?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the proposed provisions apply if the President is absent
because he claims to be writing a book?
MR. OPLE: Yes, but we put the burden on him to tell a lie to the people in
derogation of his duties in the Constitution.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, will the proponent entertain one very small
amendment? In his proposal, the proponent says, IN CASE OF SERIOUS
ILLNESS OF THE
PRESIDENT. Would he consider deleting the word SERIOUS so that the
phrase only reads: IN CASE OF ILLNESS? If we say serious illness, we
almost have
to have someone who should determine whether his illness is serious or not.
So, I suggest that we delete the word SERIOUS.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, if a President is merely down with flu, I do not
think this safeguard ought to operate. But medical authorities and we
have an
ample supply of them in this country will know exactly when an illness has
become serious.
REV. RIGOS: But the former President was reported to be suffering from flu
and yet nobody believed it.
MR. OPLE: At that time, he had no constitutional standard to satisfy.
MR. ABUBAKAR: May I ask the proponent a few questions?
Concerning the President or the Executive of any state, his health primarily
does not only concern the nation but also his family and probably his own
personal advisers and physician. Then, why should we subject the state of
health of the President to another institution or entity which has no direct
concern over his health and may not know the background of his illness?
MR. OPLE: Is the Gentleman referring to the Minister of Health or other
appropriate authority?
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes. He could be the Minister of Health in as far as the
President views the health situation of the country and his people. But this is
a
personal matter concerning the health of the President. Like us, the Members
of the Commission, we do have our personal physicians, and this is a matter
between us and our own physicians. So, the state of health or analysis as to
the actual condition of the President should be left to the President and his
doctor.
MR. OPLE: Is Commissioner Abubakar suggesting that we eliminate the
phrase THROUGH THE MINISTER OF HEALTH OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY?
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes.
MR. OPLE: We accept the amendment, madam President.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Thank You.
MR. OPLE: The first sentence will now read: IN CASE OF SERIOUS ILLNESS OF
THE PRESIDENT THE PUBLIC SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE STATE OF HIS
HEALTH.
Will the Gentleman yield to only one clarificatory question?
In all seriousness, will the proponent give us examples of what he would
consider a serious illness? This for purposes of clarification in the record,
Madam President.
MR. OPLE: A serious illness in my laymans opinion ought to be one that
almost but not quite incapacitates the President for that period of the serious
illness.
MR. SUAREZ: Is there no duration as to the physical incapability or incapacity
of the incumbent President?
MR. OPLE: I feel that as the proponent of this amendment, I might be
usurping the competence others technically better prepared to answer this
question. If
there is a doctor in the Commission, maybe we can recruit him right now for
his expert advice.
MR. SUAREZ: Maybe the Honorable Quesada could be of some assistance to

us in this regard.
MR. ROSALES: Will the Gentleman yield to question, Madam President?
MR. ROSALES: Is a President, receiving dialysis treatment. considered
seriously ill?
MR. OPLE: Since this deals with what is generally considered a serious
organic ailment, a systemic disease, I suppose that, yes, this could come
under the
class of serious illness.
MR. ROSALES: Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: I think in fairness to future interpreters of our Constitution, we
have to give examples of what would constitute serious illness on the part
of the President that would necessitate the issuance of a medical bulletin, in
a manner of speaking, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Yes. I already defined the standard that if this illness is systemic or
organic, it affects the whole organism. An example mentioned by
Commissioner Rosales is a more or less advanced state of kidney illness that
requires treatment by dialysis. There are, of course, infinite examples. But
the standard I would like to suggest is one where he is not really
incapacitated but seriously inconvenienced in the conduct of his urgent
duties as
President.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, the thrust of the amendment is that at least the
public should be informed.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. It is the publics right to know; besides, the
safeguarding of our national survival and security can be irretrievably
impaired if the access of those in charge of national security and foreign
relations is cut off through confabulations in the household, so that the
President is kept in a state of ignorance about a period of national danger.
THE PRESIDENT: With the elimination of the Minister of Health, who will then
inform the public? I just want to clarify that.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I think we will leave the burden to the Office of
the President to choose the appropriate means of releasing information to
the
public.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I was going to propose an amendment
because, from the discussion, it would seem that there are many details that
have to be
filled in. Commissioner Ople mentioned about who should give the
information, and Commissioner Suarez was talking about what kind of illness
would fall
within the perception of the proponent. So, I thought, if the distinguished
proponent would accept, the details should be left to the Congress to
determine
by law, because we have no physician in this body, and perhaps the
legislature would be able to provide the details. I agree fully with the
principle or
the concept expressed by the honorable proponent.
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment, and so the first sentence will now read:
IN CASE OF SERIOUS ILLNESS OF THE PRESIDENT, THE PUBLIC SHALL BE
INFORMED OF THE
STATE OF HIS HEALTH AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
Madam President, I think I have just changed my mind after an expert on
medical matters came around. We are called upon to be more trusting with
respect to
the Office of the President that they will know what appropriate means to
take in order to release this information to the public in satisfaction of the
publics right to know about the presidency.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I explain? I thought all along that the
honorable proponent was thinking of a situation such as when recently there
was
an attempt on the part of the Executive not to inform the public. And now,
we are going to entrust this obligation or duty . . .
MR. OPLE: Madam President, we will leave something for people power to do.
Maybe Commissioner Aquino can lead a march, if they are not satisfied with
the
information coming from the Office of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the proponent does not accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Guingona also not insisting on his proposed

amendment?
MR. GUINGONA: No, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, just one question.
MR. RODRIGO: If there is such a provision in the Constitution, there must be a
sanction for the violation of that provision. So, for the record, if the
incumbent President fails to comply with this provision, will this be
considered as culpable violation of the Constitution which is ground for
impeachment?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Ople say?
MR. OPLE: Did the Gentleman ask if this will be a culpable violation of the
Constitution?
MR. RODRIGO: If the President fails to comply with this, would it be classified
as culpable violation of the Constitution?
MR. OPLE: I think we are using the moral pressure of the Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: For the record, would failure to comply with this constitutional
mandate be considered culpable violation of the Constitution which is one of
the grounds for impeachment?
MR. OPLE: In the sense that a constitutional standard was violated, I think
that is a perfectly censurable act. But I am not inclined to say at this point
that it attains to the level of a culpable violation.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, since it is not clear who is commanded to
make the revelation, we cannot determine really who culpably violates the
Constitution. I think the intention of the proponent is merely to establish a
principle in general terms.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Will the proponent yield to a question?
MR. OPLE: Does the Rules allow two interpellations on the same subject by
the same person? If the Rules so allows then I will be happy to yield to
Commissioner Abubakar.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Since the proponent has indirectly expressed a wish not to
be interpellated, I yield.
MR. OPLE: No, Madam President. I will be glad to be interpellated in
accordance with the Rules.
MR. ABUBAKAR: If it is in accordance with the Rules that there be no double
interpellation, I also yield.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say? Is the Committee reacting
favorably to this proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment has been sufficiently explained
and debated upon.
Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople
which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President. On Section 10, line 20, page 4, I
propose to insert between vacancy and occur the following phrase: IN
THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT. The whole line as
amended will read: morning of the third day after the vacancy IN THE
OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT occurs, convene.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I think we have a pending motion on Section
10. The copies of the proposed provision have been distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: So we will defer that.

MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, if I may be allowed to explain to the
Committee.
Section 10 is lifted from the 1984 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution and
is related precisely to the situation then obtaining where we did not have a
Vice-President. And so, Section 10 was inserted in the 1973 Constitution
pursuant to the 1984 Amendments to take care of a rule on succession
before the
mandated election of the President in 1987. The situation now contemplated
is a vacancy in the offices of the President and the Vice-President; therefore,
there is an immediate need for a special law calling for the election of the
President and the Vice-President at the same time.
FR. BERNAS: This is just a clarificatory amendment because it really follows
from the preceding paragraph.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Even if it is not there, what is meant is vacancy in the offices of
the President and the Vice-President. So all it does is clarify the matter.
MR. DAVIDE: It will clarify the matter.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, the proposed amendment on Section 10
follows Section 9. This is why in Section 10 we speak only of the vacancy in
the Office
of the President. The vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President is taken care
of in Section 8.
MR. DAVIDE: I can defer my proposal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized the Committee to
confer and see how Section 10 is affected by the proposed amendment of
Commissioner
Rigos.
The session is suspended.
It was 3:38 p.m.

MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the
Executive be recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, with respect to the proposed
amendments on Section 10, the proponents have agreed to withdraw their
amendments after it had
been explained to them that they refer to the election of the President and
the Vice-President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Gentleman referring to Commissioners Rigos and
Nolledo?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President. With respect to the same Section 10,
the only other proposed amendment is the proposal of Commissioners
Nolledo and
Guingona to change seventy days on line 4, page 5, to ONE HUNDRED
EIGHTY days. The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The body shall now vote on the proposed amendment.
Is there any objection to change the word seventy to ONE HUNDRED
EIGHTY? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I just clarify. My coproponents are
Commissioners Maambong, Davide, Ople and Rodrigo.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, there was a proposed amendment by
Commissioner Bacani which we deferred until we had conferred with
Commissioner Monsod. The
latter has informed me that they have e come to a happy meeting of the
minds.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Gentleman referring to Section 7?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Madam President. Commissioner Monsod and I propose
to reword Section 7 as follows: THE SALARIES OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-
PRESIDENT
SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LAW AND SHALL NOT BE DECREASED. NO
INCREASE IN SAID COMPENSATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT UNTIL AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TERM OF THE
INCUMBENT DURING WHICH SUCH INCREASE WAS APPROVED. THEY SHALL
NOT RECEIVE DURING THEIR TENURE ANY OTHER EMOLUMENT FROM THE
GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER SOURCE.
That is the first part of the amendment.
MR. REGALADO: May we have it a little slowly, Commissioner Bacani? Do we
maintain the first sentence?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, the first sentence is maintained.
MR. REGALADO: The President shall have an official residence.
BISHOP BACANI: And then, THE SALARIES OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICEPRESIDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LAW AND SHALL NOT BE DECREASED.
NO INCREASE IN SAID
COMPENSATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
TERM OF THE INCUMBENT DURING WHICH SUCH INCREASE WAS APPROVED.
THEY SHALL NOT RECEIVE
DURING THEIR TENURE ANY OTHER EMOLUMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT
OR ANY OTHER SOURCE.
The sentence that follows, it is presumed, will be transferred to the Transitory
Provisions.
MR. REGALADO: For the sake of uniformity, and because we have applied this
in the other departments and offices, the Committee accepts the
amendment and
with the reservation for the Transitory Provisions of the corresponding
provision. May we call the attention of Commissioner Suarez to please take
note of
that. Commissioner Suarez has been complaining that there have been no
formulations. So, we will also request Commissioners Bacani and Monsod to
make a
formulation so that there will be less transiting on the part of Commissioner
Suarez.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, we will do so, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to present the situation that
since we are drafting a Constitution not only for a few years but for
centuries,
perhaps, there is a possibility of an extraordinary inflation. For example, at

the beginning of the term of a Senator or a President, there is a
devaluation. I think it would be unfair to tie down the President and the
Senator to their salaries in these cases. Perhaps, we could leave this matter
of
salaries to the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions for
further study so that we could make a study in case there are extraordinary
events
that will require an increase in the salaries of our officials; otherwise, they
would be receiving compensations which would not be adequate to their
responsibilities.
MR. REGALADO: Insofar as the President and the Vice-President are
concerned, they have allowances to make up for the inadequacy. The
observation may be
valid with respect to, say, the constitutional commissioners.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner de los
Reyes be recognized for his reformulated amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Before we leave Section 10, I had a pending amendment which
was supposed to be the subject of the motion of Commissioner Rigos
because of their
so-called anterior amendment, but which was withdrawn. I wonder if the
Committee is now prepared to accept that amendment.
I am referring to my amendment to insert the words IN THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT between vacancy and occurs on
line 20, page 4.
MR. REGALADO: I think the Committee is willing to accept that because it
clarifies and specifies the offices involved.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment on line
20 of Section 10, page 4, which has been accepted by the Committee?
(Silence) The
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, before Commissioner de los Reyes
proceeds with the reformulated Section 5 which was made in collaboration
with the Committee
and Commissioners Davide and Maambong, may I call the attention of the
body that in the draft circulated, the word DEATH was omitted on line 19
after the
word OF.
MR. DE LOS REYES: And on line 14, between or and both, we insert
WHERE. That is the amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid. May I now
proceed to read
the reformulated Section 5, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: SECTION 5. THE PRESIDENT-ELECT AND THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT. SHALL ASSUME OFFICE AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR
TERMS.
Second paragraph: IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED.
Third Paragraph: IF A PRESIDENT SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT SHALL
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND
QUALIFIED.
Fourth paragraph: IF AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TERM OF THE PRESIDENT,
THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE DIED OR SHALL HAVE BECOME
PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE
VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT.
Fifth paragraph: WHERE NO PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE
BEEN CHOSEN OR SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED, OR WHERE BOTH SHALL HAVE
DIED OR BECOME PERMANENTLY
DISABLED, THE SENATE PRESIDENT, OR IN CASE OF HIS INABILITY, THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT
UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR A
VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
Sixth paragraph: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE CASE OF
DEATH, PERMANENT DISABILITY OR INABILITY OF THE OFFICIALS MENTIONED
IN THE NEXT
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH AND THE MANNER IN WHICH ONE WHO IS TO ACT
AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE SELECTED UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR A VICEPRESIDENT SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED.
This is a consolidated amendment of Commissioners Padilla, Nolledo, Rigos,
Maambong, Davide and Guingona, in collaboration with Commissioner
Regalado.
MR. REGALADO: The Chairman has asked me to announce that the
Committee accepts the reformulated amendment on Section 5.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask Commissioner de los Reyes to read the
amendment so that we can put this to a vote.
MR. DE LOS REYES: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL ASSUME OFFICE AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS.
IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE
QUALIFIED.
IF A PRESIDENT SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, THE VICE-PRESIDENTELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN
CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
IF AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TERM OF THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENTELECT SHALL HAVE DIED OR SHALL HAVE BECOME PERMANENTLY DISABLED,
THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT.
WHERE NO PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN OR SHALL
HAVE QUALIFIED OR WHERE BOTH SHALL HAVE DIED OR BECOME
PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE SENATE
PRESIDENT, OR IN CASE OF HIS INABILITY, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR A VICEPRESIDENT SHALL HAVE
BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE CASE OF DEATH,
PERMANENT DISABILITY OR INABILITY OF THE OFFICIALS MENTIONED IN THE
NEXT PRECEDING PARAGRAPH AND
THE MANNER IN WHICH ONE WHO IS TO ACT AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE
SELECTED UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we just clarify one point from the
distinguished proponent.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, gladly.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. SUAREZ: May I call Commissioner de los Reyes attention to the first and
second paragraphs, lines 1 to 5, of his draft.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: On line 2, the word ASSUME was used and on line 3, the
phrase FAILS TO QUALIFY was used. Suppose the President-elect does not
assume office
at the beginning of his term? Questions have already been raised here
sometime ago that that could possibly constitute an abandonment of office,
and that
is not equivalent to failure to qualify which appears on line 3.
So in a situation which I envision in that a President-elect will not assume
office at the beginning of his term, who would assume the presidency, and in
what character would the assumption be?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Although the situation is rather remote, the successor
will, of course, be the Vice-President.
MR. SUAREZ: In a permanent capacity?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If the failure to assume office reaches that stage where it
constitutes abandonment, then the Vice-President assumes presidency in a
permanent capacity.
FR. BERNAS: But, Madam President, I think it is clear that failure to assume
office is something that is temporary, and that is explained by lines 4 and 5
that the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect
shall have qualified.
It is the same President-elect, on line 2, who fails to qualify, and on lines 4
and 5, who shall have qualified. So it is clear that it is not an
abandonment of office.
But if we have a situation where there is a clear abandonment of office, then
this section is not applicable.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank Commissioner Bernas for the clarification, Madam

President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment on this particular Section 5 as
redrafted?
Does the Committee accept the amendment?
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment as read? (Silence) The
Chair hears none, the amendment is approved.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, this second amendment which is on
Section 9, lines 6 to 18, is related to Section 5.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear the second amendment of Commissioner de
los Reyes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The proposal is to delete the sentences on Section 9 from
lines 6 to 18 starting from The Congress up to Acting President and insert
the following: THE RULES SET FORTH IN SECTION 5 HEREOF SHALL APPLY
ALSO IN CASE OF PERMANENT DISABILITY, DEATH, REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
OR RESIGNATION OF BOTH
THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT
MR REGALADO: Madam President
MR. REGALADO: We regret to state that it is different because this refers to
the situation of the death, permanent disability or resignation of the Acting
President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, the first paragraph of Section 9 does not refer to the
Acting President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, Section 9 refers to the period when
somebody is actually in office. Section 5 deals with the situation before the
assumption
of office or before the beginning of the term of office; whereas Section 9
deals with the situation during the term.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No. The idea of the proponents of this proposal is that
instead of still making the Congress provide a law of succession to the
presidency or the vice-presidency in case of permanent disability, death or
removal from office or resignation of the President or Vice-President, the
Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case
may be, shall be the successor.
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, if the Commissioner is to take that out, what
would be applicable would be lines 19 to 23 of Section 5.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Lines 19 to 23 of Section 5.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, of Section 5. That would be the only portion that the
Commissioner could make applicable. So there is no harm in repeating this.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I withdraw the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, my amendment is on page 5, Section 11,
lines 27 to 31.
On line 27, after convening, add the following: IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
RULES WITHOUT NEED OF CALL and a comma (,), and between if and
not, insert IT
IS.
On line 28, delete twenty-one and substitute TEN.
On lines 29 to 31, delete the phrase or, if not in session, within twenty-one
days after it is required to assemble, so that lines 26 to 31 will now
read: There-upon, the Congress shall decide the issue, convening IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES WITHOUT NEED OF CALL, within forty-eight
hours for that
purpose, if IT IS not in session. If the Congress, within TEN days after receipt
of the latter written declaration determines by a two-thirds vote of both
Houses . . .
MR. REGALADO: Will Commissioner Davide kindly explain why he requests to
delete or if not in session within twenty-one days after it is required to
assemble?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that is necessary because it is; consequence of the

convening of the Congress without need of call within 48 hours if it is not in
session.
Since there is an immediate call in the event that the Congress is not in
session, necessarily the Congress can act immediately, which I limit to 10
days
because there might be a constitutional crisis if the period is too long.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, the Congress shall remain in session the
moment it has immediately convened without call, or the moment the
situation arises
and until it has eventually determined the conflicting views of the members
of the Cabinet and the President as to his inability.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, and it should be limited to 10 days because a longer period
might be dangerous constitutionally because there might be a constitutional
crisis.
FR. BERNAS: If the Congress has to convene within 48 hours, that is two
days. The applicable limit to a situation when Congress is not in session
should be
two days longer.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, 12 days.
FR. BERNAS: So instead of TEN it must be TWELVE. So it will read: or, if not
in session within TWELVE days after it is required to assemble . . .
MR. DAVIDE: So TWELVE days. That would be a good compromise. I accept,
Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: We will delete that portion referring to the situation where
the Congress is not in session, to read: within TWELVE days after receipt of
the latter written declaration.
MR. DAVIDE: We will make a uniform rule whether or not the Congress is in
actual session at the time of the receipt of the written declaration.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, it will read: If the Congress, within TEN days
after receipt of the latter written declaration, or if not in session, within
TWELVE days after it is required to assemble . . .
MR. DAVIDE: That is on line 30.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: I agree, Madam President.

MR. REGALADO: So line 27 would read: convening in ACCORDANCE WITH
ITS RULES WITHOUT NEED OF CALL, but line 30 would read: within TWELVE
days after it is
required to assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: After it is required to assemble, because there is no need of a
call.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, within TWELVE days after it is required to assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: A moment, please, so that we can clarify this.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I would like to ask a question or two for the
record. What would be the consequence if the Congress fails to get the
two-thirds vote of both Houses within the time limit of 10 days or 12 days?
MR. DAVIDE: In that particular case, I understand that the President will
continue in his functions.
MR. RODRIGO: And Congress may no longer declare the incapacity of the
President?
MR. DAVIDE: Pursuant to the Commissioners amendment earlier.
MR. RODRIGO: No, that was not covered by my amendment. What I mean is
the Congress is limited to 10 days or 12 days to act on the issue, and that is
to
gather the two-thirds vote of both Houses. Let me make the question
specific. After the lapse of 10 days, if Congress is in session, may it still on
the
15th day, if it gets two-thirds vote of both Houses, reinstate or declare the
President incapacitated?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that should really be.
MR. RODRIGO: So even if the 10-day period lapses, the Congress can still act.
MR. DAVIDE: It might until it has voted; the President anyway continues
exercising his powers and functions.
MR. RODRIGO: Then what is the use of the amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The idea is to compel the legislature to act immediately,

because otherwise a prolonged period for it to decide may constitute or may
give way
to a constitutional crisis.
MR. RODRIGO: The only way anybody can be compelled to act is to state
what would be the consequence if he does not comply with the compulsion.
FR. BERNAS: For that matter, the Commissioners question applies also even
if the limit were 21 days.
MR. RODRIGO: My question now is: We are prescribing a limit. If we are
prescribing a limit within which the Congress should act, then there must be
a
consequence in case the Congress fails to act within the limit; otherwise, the
limit is useless. So my question is: If the time limit of 10 days or 12 days
lapses and the Congress fails to act, fails to get the two-thirds vote of both
Houses, what is the consequence? May the Congress still act or not and
thereby the President continues indefinitely to occupy the position?
FR. BERNAS: I would say that if the Congress does not act within that period,
that means the President stays. And if the situation is changed, then we have
to restart the process.
MR. RODRIGO: We have to restart the process, which means the Cabinet by a
majority vote of its members will send a letter to the Senate President and
the
Speaker?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, we will restart the process.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. REGALADO: Will Commissioner Davide please restate the provision
starting from line 21? May remind Commissioner Davide that there was an
amendment here
which is to add a period (.) after office.
MR. DAVIDE: That will not be affected by my amendment.
MR. REGALADO: On line 26, before his office, the word Thereupon has
been eliminated. This is just for purposes of Commissioner Davide reading
this
portion.
MR. DAVIDE: So I will begin from line 26. The proposed amendment as
modified and as accepted by the Committee is as follows: The Congress
shall decide the
issue convening IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES WITHOUT NEED OF CALL,
within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if IT IS not in session. If the
Congress
within TEN days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if not in
session, within TWELVE days after it is required to assemble, determines by
a two-thirds vote of both Houses . . .
MR. REGALADO: No, two days plus 10 days.
FR. BERNAS: No, but if it is after it has assembled, we might as well make it
10 days.
The additional two days was precisely to give the Congress the opportunity
to assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: If we make the starting point after it has assembled, then we
might as well make it 10 days also.
MR. DAVIDE: That was the original proposal, to make it uniform.
FR. BERNAS: That is why my recommendation was: if not in session, within
TWELVE days after it is required to assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: So the amendment is as is then, TWELVE days after it is
required to assemble.
FR. BERNAS: The additional two days is to give the Congress time to
assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: So lines 28 to 31 will read: If the Congress within TEN days
after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if not in session, within
TWELVE days after it is required to assemble . . .
FR. BERNAS: . . . within TEN days . . .
MR. DAVIDE: . . . within TEN days, rather.
FR. BERNAS: No, TWELVE days after it is required to assemble. The
additional two days is for them to assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: That is it, within TWELVE days after it is required to assemble.
MR. REGALADO: The Committee accepts the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: For clarification and the information of the Commissioners
before they vote, will Commissioner Davide please restate the provision
starting
from line 26.
MR. DAVIDE: The provision starting from line 26 will now read as follows:
The Congress shall decide the issue, convening IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
RULES
WITHOUT NEED OF CALL, within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if IT IS not
in session. If the Congress, within TEN days after receipt of the latter
written declaration, or, if not in session, within TWELVE days after it is
required to assemble, determines . . .
THE PRESIDENT: This proposed amendment has been accepted by the
Committee.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment on page 5, lines 26 to 31?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I have no objection to the clarifications, but
to probably make the provision clearer, why do we not say If the Congress is
in session, then continue with the others? This is just a suggestion.
MR. DAVIDE: With that intention, I will leave it to the Committee on Style.
amendments are approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, another amendment on Section 12, page 6,
line 6: to delete the word shall and substitute it with MAY. On lines 8 and 9,
delete the following phrase: without the concurrence of at least a majority
of all the members of the Congress and substitute it with the following:
EXCEPT IN THE MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN
SECTION 15 OF THIS ARTICLE; so that Section 12 will read: An Acting
President MAY not
declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
EXCEPT IN THE MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN
SECTION 15 OF
THIS ARTICLE.
MR. NOLLEDO: I submitted a similar amendment to the Committee, and I

presume the Committee has accepted it. Will Commissioner Davide please
accept my
MR. DAVIDE: If it was accepted by the Committee, then we could consider it
as a joint amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, my amendment is with respect to lines 8
and 9, which should now read: EXCEPT UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF AND
SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 15 HEREOF, so that Section 12 would
now read: An Acting President MAY not declare martial law or suspend the
privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus EXCEPT UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF AND SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 15 HEREOF.
What does Commissioner Davide say? The Committee has already accepted
this amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: If the Committee has accepted the amendment, it would carry
the same intention and effect.
FR. BERNAS: Let me just ask. Is it really necessary to say this?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, because if I may answer also on behalf of Commissioner
Davide, as originally worded, Section 12 states without the concurrence of
at
least a majority of all the members of the Congress and the amendment to
Section 12 which refers to Section 15 states: EXCEPT UNDER THE
CONDITIONS OF AND
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 15 HEREOF. So that if
we adopt the original provision, it will carry the impression that a vote of a
majority of all the Members of Congress will suffice without the other
provision set forth in Section 15 as applicable. So we would like the other
provision of Section 15 likewise apply to a declaration of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus even if made merely
by
an Acting President.
FR. BERNAS: But if we do not say anything about his power to impose martial
law, then it is understood that if he is going to impose martial law at all, it
will have to be according to Section 15.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Otherwise, he will have more powers than the President. So it
would seem to me that the first paragraph of Section 12 is unnecessary.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. I think we better delete Section 12.
FR. BERNAS: Not the whole Section 12, but its first paragraph.
MR. DAVIDE: The first paragraph of Section 12 should be deleted.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, we can delete the first paragraph of Section 12. I agree.
MR. REGALADO: There were those in the Committee who wanted this
clarified because Section 15 refers to a President. There might always be a
little loophole
where the Acting President whose position is only temporary in character will
say: Well, that was with respect to the President who is permanent in
nature. So to avoid precisely the possibility of hairsplitting technicalities, we
make it specific that just like the President, the Acting President also
cannot just declare martial law, and conjointly with the second paragraph,
the limitations on his power of appointment. Making it specific will avoid any
questions later because we know how lawyers are; they can always try to
squeeze out of a situation and make distinctions where distinctions should
not
really exist.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the idea of deleting the first paragraph is
simply this: An Acting President exercises all the powers of the President and,
therefore, he can declare martial law, but the manner under which he may
would be subject to Section 15. So it is not really necessary to insert in the
first paragraph of Section 12 the right of the Acting President to declare
martial law because, in effect, we would be conceding to him a greater
power
than that of a regular President.
MR. RAMA: I would like to support the idea of Commissioner Davide that
there is absolutely no need for this Article defining the powers of the Acting,
President which powers will be the same as the President. The situation
stated by Commissioner Regalado that an Acting Presidents power must be
defined
would create a lot of complications because we have to define also the
powers of the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Acting VicePresident,
etc. There is no need to define their powers because they have the powers of
the office that they are acting in. And I think we should not clutter up the
Constitution with all these unnecessary provisions which would yield to
varying interpretations.
MR. REGALADO: If it is on record that that is the understanding, then the first
paragraph may be deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: Does everybody agree? Does Commissioner Nolledo agree
to the deletion?
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: How about Commissioner Davide, does he also agree?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but only with the deletion of the first paragraph of Section
12.
THE PRESIDENT: So the first paragraph of Section 12 is deleted.
approved.
May we know the sponsors of this amendment to delete the first paragraph
of Section 12.
MR. SARMIENTO: The sponsors are Commissioners Davide, Nolledo and
Rama.
Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I would like to propose an amendment to
Section 15, lines 1 and 2, page 7, which is to delete the phrase and, with
the
concurrence of at least a majority of all the members of the Congress.

FR. BERNAS: Yesterday during our deliberations, Commissioner Padilla made
a proposal that we treat the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus separately from the declaration of martial law. And whereas
concurrence of at least a majority of all the Members of Congress might not
be necessary
or might be harmful for purposes of imposing martial law, it may not be
harmful for purposes of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
two
different effects. So if, perhaps, we would yield to the desire of Commissioner
Padilla that we treat these separately, if in the end we arrive at the
conclusion that we use the same rules, we can put them together again. But
I think it is necessary to discuss the two powers separately. Perhaps, we ask
Commissioners Padilla and Monsod to get together to see if some kind of
coordination can be done.
THE PRESIDENT: So we will entertain this later.
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I have no objection to the proposal of Commissioner Monsod in
the sense that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by the President
under certain conditions does not need the concurrence of the majority of
the Members of Congress. And I would go further that even the proclamation
of the
state of martial law under certain conditions also should not secure the a
priori concurrence of the majority of the Members of Congress, for after all as
the section provides, the Congress may revoke such proclamation or
suspension or even extend the period of 60 days. But for the initial
declaration either
of the suspension of the writ or of the proclamation of martial law, it should
not be necessary to secure the concurrence of a majority of the Members of
Congress.
FR. BERNAS: So in other words, Commissioner Padilla is not pushing his idea
of separating them.
MR. PADILLA: I have my own proposed amendment to classify Section 15 into
three situations, as follows: (I) to prevent or suppress lawless violence; (2) to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus; and (3) to proclaim martial law. Because
it seems to me that these three are separate stages in the exercise of the
powers of the President as commander-in-chief when public safety demands.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, it being our snack time, could the
Commissioner get together with Commissioner Monsod to discuss the
matter?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, and with all other Commissioners who may have proposed
amendments to Section 15.
MR. DE CASTRO: May we omit the first paragraph, Madam President?
It was 4:38 p.m.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be
recognized for an amendment on Section 1 5.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, before Commissioner Monsod takes the
rostrum, may I just add this for the record. Upon the request of
Commissioner Ople, I
went to our Medical Service and Dr. Fe Soriano, Chief of the Medical Service
of our Constitutional Commission Secretariat, gave this opinion about serious
illness. So for the record, may I read what she wrote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson will please proceed.
MR. TINGSON: Dr. Fe Soriano, Chief of our Medical Service, said that serious
illness means any condition that could cause imminent death or would
incapacitate the person to the extent, for example, that his mental faculties
would deteriorate.
I thought that that might be good for our record, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: If the intention there is to put a definition of serious illness, I do
not think the Commission or those who will interpret the Constitution
should be bound by that particular opinion. We leave the matter to the
Supreme Court to interpret it later.
MR. OPLE: We intended to have nothing more than the persuasive weight of
the definition, Madam President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the opinion of a doctor; that is all.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we were not able to get together with the
Committee on a consolidated amendment, so we are back to my original
amendment,
except that I believe Commissioner Padilla would like to discuss his proposal
because that is anterior.
So may I request that my proposed amendment be temporarily held in
abeyance in order that Commissioner Padilla may be given a chance to
propose his.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, some of the Commissioners who have
proposed amendments on Section 15 have met together, although we could
not directly confer
with all the members of the Committee, but its distinguished Chairman
knows of these proposed amendments.
On Section 15, page 6, line 26, the first sentence remains: The President
shall be the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines
and,
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence My amendment is to substitute OR
PUBLIC
DISORDER in lieu of invasion or rebellion on line 29. That is the first
situation.
On the same page, line 30, insert the word ACTUAL between of and
invasion and on line 31 insert the clause BY PROCLAMATION, PLACE THE
PHILIPPINES OR
ANY PART THEREOF UNDER MARTIAL LAW. THE PERIOD OF SUCH
SUSPENSION OR PROCLAMATION SHALL NOT EXCEED . . .
On page 7, lines 1 to 4, delete and, with the concurrence of at least a
majority of all the members of the Congress, suspend the privilege of the
writ of
habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
law.
On the same page 7, lines 21 to 23, substitute the whole paragraph with:
DURING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, ANY PERSON
WHO HAS BEEN ARRESTED AND DETAINED SHALL BE JUDICIALLY CHARGED
WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS OTHERWISE HE SHALL BE RELEASED.
The reason for the substitution of these last three lines is that during the
martial law regime, several innocent persons were arrested by virtue of
ASSO,
PCO and PDA and some of them had been detained not only for one month,
but for one year or more without any charge in court, and some of these
persons did
not know why they were arrested.
As worded, however, it says that it shall apply only to persons judicially
charged. So if the person has been judicially charged, there must have been
a
warrant of arrest issued. There would be no problem as to that because the
person arrested would have his judicial remedies. What we are avoiding or
preventing is the situation wherein a person is arrested during the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without any criminal information or
judicial
charge filed.
With regard to the distinction that we try to make among, first, the situation
of lawless violence; second, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus; and, third, the proclamation of martial law, it seems to us
that these situations are really three different stages.
We all agree that the suspension of the writ or the proclamation of martial
law should not require beforehand the concurrence of the majority of all the
Members of the Congress. However, as provided by the Committee, the
Congress may revoke, amend, shorten or even increase the period of such
suspension.
I realize that in the provisions of the Article on the Bill of Rights on the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, there was a great deal of discussion
regarding the words imminent danger of rebellion or invasion. Many of us
wanted to retain the words imminent danger as provided in the 1935 and
1973
Constitutions. And I know that the majority decision was to delete the words
imminent danger, so that it would be limited to actual invasion or
rebellion.
We feel, Madam President, that if there is already an actual invasion or
rebellion, then the suspension of the writ may become a useless formality.
But,
precisely, the intention is to provide for the suspension of the writ under
certain conditions short of actual rebellion or invasion.
I recall that during the time of President Quirino, he never declared martial
law although he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. So we feel that the
two
situations are not similar. Martial law contemplates a graver situation than
the mere suspension of the writ.
This morning Commissioner Monsod gave us a copy of his reminders stating
that in our effort to prevent abuses by government, we are unduly curtailing
and
restricting the exercise of the powers of the President. One such restriction is
the elimination of the words imminent danger, because under that
provision, the President as commander-in-chief of all the Armed Forces
cannot suspend the writ of habeas corpus unless there be actual invasion or
rebellion.
I realize that there may be many objections to this differentiation between
suspension of the writ and the declaration of martial law, particularly in that
others may attempt to reconsider the provision on the Article on the Bill of
Rights and to reinsert this phrase imminent danger. I believe, Madam
President, that while we respect the majority decision in the consideration of
the Article on the Bill of Rights, particularly that provision on the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, this body should not be completely
deprived of an opportunity to reconsider or improve provisions that we have
already approved in past sessions. In fact, it would be healthy if after many
of these committee reports have been considered, discussed, debated on
and
approved, there be an opportunity for all to resubmit a few important and,
perhaps, debatable issues for further deliberation by the Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.

MR. NATIVIDAD: Will the distinguished Gentleman yield to a few questions?
MR. PADILLA: Very gladly.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Some of us have similar amendments and we would rather
just ask some clarificatory questions than propose these amendments we
have in mind
if we were satisfied with the answers.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, very gladly.
MR. NATIVIDAD: First and foremost, we agree with the Commissioners thesis
that in the first imposition of martial law there is no need for concurrence of
the majority of the Members of Congress because the provision says in case
of actual invasion and rebellion. If there is actual invasion and rebellion,
as Commissioner Crispino de Castro said, there is need for immediate
response because there is an attack. Second, the fact of securing a
concurrence may be
impractical because the roads might be blocked or barricaded. They say that
in case of a rebellion, one cannot even take his car and go to the Congress,
which is possible because the roads are blocked or barricaded. And maybe if
the revolutionaries are smart, they would have an individual team for each
and
every Member of the Congress so he would not be able to respond to a call
for a session. So the requirement of an initial concurrence of the majority of
all the
Members of the Congress in case of an invasion or rebellion might be
impractical as I can see it.
Second, Section 15 states that the Congress may revoke the declaration or
lift the suspension.
And third, the matter of declaring martial law is already a justiciable question
and no longer a political one in that it is subject to judicial review at
any point in time. So on that basis, I agree that there is no need for
concurrence as a prerequisite to declare martial law or to suspend the
privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus. I notice in the Commissioners proposal that he is
requiring less factors for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus than for the declaration of martial law. Is that correct?
MR. PADILLA: That is correct.
MR. NATIVIDAD: And the Commissioner said that in case of subversion,

sedition or imminent danger of rebellion or invasion, that would be the
causus beli
for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. But I wonder
whether or not the Commissioner would consider intelligence reports of
military officers as evidence of imminent danger of rebellion or invasion
because this is usually the evidence presented.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, as credible evidence, especially if they are based on actual
reports and investigation of facts that might soon happen.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Then the difficulty here is, of course, that the authors and
the witnesses in intelligence reports may not be forthcoming under the rule
of
classified evidence or documents. Does the Commissioner still accept that as
evidence?
MR. PADILLA: It is for the President as commander-in-chief of the Armed
Forces to appraise these reports and be satisfied that the public safety
demands
the suspension of the writ. After all, this can also be raised before the
Supreme Court as in the declaration of martial law because it will no longer
be,
as the former Solicitor General always contended, a political issue. It
becomes now a justiciable issue. The Supreme Court may even investigate
the factual
background in support of the suspension of the writ or the declaration of
martial law.
MR. NATIVIDAD: As far as the Commissioner is concerned, would he respect
the exercise of the right to, say, classified documents, and when authors of
or
witnesses to these documents may not be revealed?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because the President, in making this decision of
suspending the writ, will have to base his judgment on the document
because, after all,
we are restricting the period to only 60 days and further we are giving the
Congress or the Senate the right or the power to revoke, reduce or extend its
period.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I heard the Commissioner mention that it is possible under
his proposal to get the concurrence not of the Congress, but of the Senate.
This,
again, is an area where I vacillate because the House is composed of elected
Members who are closer to the people. It might be a little bit more difficult
to consult with the House, but then it is a factor that will give support to the
President later on if we are able to get the consent and concurrence of
the House. And in the case of the declaration of martial law, I think the Chief
Executive would need all the friends that he or she can get and, therefore,
getting the nod of the House in a matter of the declaration of martial law, I
think, should not be given up as far as this Constitution is concerned.
MR. PADILLA: Personally, I am not very emphatic as to the change of
Congress to SENATE. It could remain with the Congress. Some other
Commissioners,
especially Commissioner Monsod and, as concurred in by the Chairman of
the Committee, I think that the word Congress could be substituted by
SENATE.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Lastly, the Commissioner proposed the substitution of the
whole paragraph on page 7, lines 21 to 23, to: DURING THE SUSPENSION OF
THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN
ARRESTED AND DETAINED SHALL BE JUDICIALLY CHARGED WITHIN FIVE
WORKING DAYS OTHERWISE HE
SHALL BE RELEASED.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If the government claims to charge him, then he will have to
be released.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I think this is a satisfactory compromise because this would
prevent the recurrence of the incidents in the past when people under such a
situation were detained for hundreds of days.
MR. PADILLA: That proposal is to prevent that odious occurrence before.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Under any circumstances, they cannot be detained beyond
five working days.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, unless the proper criminal information is filed. In which
case, it becomes the judicial prerogative whether or not the accused will be
entitled to bail.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. By that, the case is filed in court, not in the fiscals
office.
MR. PADILLA: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, the criminal information must be filed in court. I would
just like to make it of record that the accused must be charged in court. It
is not enough that they are charged in the fiscals office.
MR. PADILLA: We have not changed the wording in the committee report
regarding persons judicially charged.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Judicially, yes. I would just like to clarify the record because
in law enforcement there is always that loophole that the accused had been
properly charged. But what we mean by charged is judicially charged in
court and not in the fiscals office.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Does Commissioner Padilla agree with that view?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, that is why we maintain the phrase judicially charged.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Suarez would like to
interpellate.
Will the distinguished Vice-President yield to a few clarificatory questions?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, very gladly.
The Commissioner is suggesting that in connection with Section 15, we
delete the phrase and, with the concurrence of at least a majority of all the
Members of the Congress . . .
MR. PADILLA: That is correct especially for the initial suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or also the declaration of martial law.
MR. SUAREZ: So in both instances, the Commissioner is suggesting that this
would be an exclusive prerogative of the President?
MR. PADILLA: At least initially, for a period of 60 days. But even that period of
60 days may be shortened by the Congress or the Senate because the next
sentence says that the Congress or the Senate may even revoke the
proclamation.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, when we started on this amendment by
Commissioner Padilla, I wanted to present my amendment but I gave way
because of the
anterior proposals of Commissioner Padilla. But I have a series of
amendments on lines 1, 4, 5 and 7, page 7 that would have a different effect
from the
discussions now. I wonder if we can take these because the answers would
be different, depending on whether or not my amendments would be
accepted by the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Commissioner Monsod conferred with the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, I have conferred with the Chairman,
Commissioner Sumulong, on the substitution of SENATE for Congress and
with
Commissioner Bernas on the deletion of the phrase revoke such
proclamation or suspension.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there no way of consolidating the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Padilla with that of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, we tried to do that, Madam President, and, in fact, the
consolidated formulation that we tried to present to the Committee
contained all
of these. Some of the amendments in that consolidated formulation were
accepted and others were not. So I gave way to Commissioner Padilla so he
could
discuss the parts that were not accepted by the Committee.
We will recall that during the period of sponsorship and debate, I was the first
one who objected to the need for the concurrence of the majority of all
the Members of the Congress before the President can proclaim martial law
or suspend the writ. So I have my amendment on this, but I gave way to the
amendment of Commissioner Padilla because the provision on the initial
concurrence of Congress has already been eliminated. My next amendment
is on the
second sentence.
MR. MONSOD: For the information of Commissioner de Castro, there has
been no elimination yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Let Commissioner de Castro finish first his amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: The Honorable Padilla proposed the deletion of the phrase
and; with the concurrence of at least a majority of the members of the
Congress
as appearing on page 7, line 1, which was also my amendment, so I did not
propose it anymore. However, on the second sentence I would also like to
propose
an amendment as a result of Commissioner Monsods amendment
substituting Congress with SENATE.
THE PRESIDENT: So these are all joint amendments in that the
Commissioners who proposed these amendments will be considered joint
sponsors.
MR. DE CASTRO: The Chairman of the Steering Committee informed us that
we will not talk first of the first paragraph of Section 15, instead we will talk
of
the second paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: After conferring with Commissioner Padilla, he has agreed
that he will confine himself to the first paragraph of Section 15 on page 6 to
which
he has an amendment. So we will take that up first.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on line 29?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President. Thereafter Commissioner Monsod will

take over and present his amendments on page 7 and this is where an
arrangement has
been arrived at between Commissioners de Castro and Monsod on those
amendments.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, I do not agree with Commissioner
Monsod on the substitution of Congress with SENATE. I agree that we
take up the first
sentence first before we go to the second sentence of Section 15.
THE PRESIDENT: So, let us call first the amendment of Commissioner Padilla.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, so that the Committee can also follow the
discussion, we will take up the amendments step by step; first, the grounds
for
the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.
THE PRESIDENT: No. We will first hear the proposed amendment on line 29.
May the Chair know the proposed amendment?
MR. PADILLA: On page 6, line 29, substitute invasion or rebellion with OR
PUBLIC DISORDER.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment on line 29 to
substitute invasion or rebellion with OR PUBLIC DISORDER?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we continue our interpellation of the
distinguished Vice-President on paragraph 1?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the amendment is on line 29.
MR. SUAREZ: I am sorry.
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee cannot accept the amendment on Section
15, line 29, to delete the phrase invasion or rebellion and to substitute it
with OR
PUBLIC DISORDER because under this first sentence of Section 15, the
President may call out and make use of the Armed Forces to prevent or
suppress not
only lawless violence bat even invasion or rebellion without declaring martial
law. If we delete invasion or rebellion and substitute it with OR PUBLIC
DISORDER, then the President will have to declare martial law before he can
make use of the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress invasion or rebellion.

That is the reason we regret that we cannot accept the proposed amendment
of the Commissioner on the first sentence of Section 15.
MR. PADILLA: The first sentence contemplates a lighter situation where there
is some lawless violence in a small portion of the country or public disorder
in another barrio. Naturally, the Armed Forces can be used to prevent or
suppress that situation. And if the commander-in-chief can do that in a
smaller
degree, with more reason can he exercise the powers of the commander-inchief when the situation becomes graver. What I mean is that the elimination
of the
phrase invasion or rebellion does not mean that in case of invasion or
rebellion, the President cannot call on the Armed Forces to prevent or
suppress
the same. That will be a little absurd.
MR. REGALADO: Our problem, Madam President, is that both the 1935 and
the 1973 Constitutions mentioned invasion and rebellion as among those
instances
where the President can call out the Armed Forces without the need of
declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. If we eliminate that, the necessary implication would be that there
must have been a reason why we eliminated that which was enshrined in
those two
Constitutions. The construction of it would be that this Commission
deliberately eliminated that because then the President should not be
permitted to call
out the Armed Forces in case of actual invasion or rebellion but can only do
so by a proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the
MR. PADILLA: That is not the intention, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Public disorder is already more or less covered by lawless
violence.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct. That is the lighter situation.
MR. REGALADO: So why do we not just let the phrase invasion and
rebellion remain as it is?
THE PRESIDENT: How about the inclusion of OR PUBLIC DISORDER?
MR. REGALADO: Public disorder could already be covered by lawless
violence. But we should retain invasion or rebellion.
MR. PADILLA: The only problem is that invasion or rebellion has been
understood as actual invasion or actual rebellion.
The President can call on the Armed Forces to suppress lawless violence and
anything that affects public safety. That is understood. There is no intention
that, if the situation becomes graver, he will have less power.
MR. REGALADO: But it could be argued the other way around also in that we
specifically eliminated the power to call the Armed Forces because in case of
invasion or rebellion, there must be a proclamation of martial law.
MR. PADILLA: If that is the fear of the members of the Committee, I will not
insist on my amendment because that is not my primary purpose. I am just
trying to distinguish three different stages or three separate situations.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we could proceed to line 30. Is there any proposed
amendment on line 30?
MR. PADILLA: On line 30, I propose to include: IN CASE OF SUBVERSION,
SEDITION OR IMMINENT DANGER OF REBELLION OR INVASION WHEN THE
PUBLIC SAFETY DEMANDS
IT, HE MAY SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN ANY PART OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment would increase the grounds for
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I just be allowed to ask one question of Commissioner
Padilla. The Commissioner added the word SUBVERSION as one of the
grounds for
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. As defined, is
the Commissioner referring to RA 1700 as amended by P.D. No. 885, which is
the
Anti-Subversion Law as amended?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, with the stress that subversion, as correctly understood, is
with the aid or assistance, overt or covert, of an alien power.
FR. BERNAS: Point of order Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: The matter proposed adds new grounds for the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. In the Article on the Bill of Rights
which we have already approved on Third Reading, we limited the grounds
for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to actual
rebellion and actual invasion. So before we can rediscuss this, we would have
to reconsider our Third Reading approval of the Article on the Bill of
Rights, and before we can reconsider that, we will have to suspend the Rules
because the period of reconsideration has already passed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the reason for the Committee not accepting the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla?
MR. REGALADO: That is not all, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: No, for this line; we are just on line 30, on the additional
grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President. The Committee does not accept the
proposed amendment not only because it has, in a manner of speaking, been
foreclosed
by the Article on the Bill of Rights having been passed on Third Reading, but
also because of the additional grounds like sedition, subversion or imminent
danger thereof. Of course, as to the elimination of the phrase imminent
danger in both the Articles on the Bill of Rights and on the Executive, that
has
already been explained thoroughly here on the floor. There is a fear that the
President could base the suspension of the writ on alleged intelligence
reports which cannot be looked into and the veracity of which is dependent
on the classification by the military. This could lead to a situation where
these reports could easily be manufactured and attributed to anybody,
without even the judiciary being in a position to refuse or look into the truth
of
the same. If they say it is classified as class A or class B, how can even
the judiciary dispute the authenticity and the truth of those
classifications? With respect to sedition, this only involves a public up rising;
not an armed-public uprising. The purpose of sedition is only to prevent
the public authorities, including the judiciary, from carrying out their
functions It is not rebellion. Also, sedition is for the purpose of despoiling a
particular social class, or an attack upon the lives of persons or private
property of public officers just because they are public officers. It is on a
much lesser magnitude because it does not involve an armed public uprising.
The moment there is an armed public uprising, it becomes rebellion.
MR. PADILLA: It is correct that sedition is of a, lesser magnitude than
rebellion. That is why it is one of the grounds proposed for the suspension of
the
writ; whereas, actual rebellion or invasion is one of the grounds for the
declaration of martial law. Admittedly, sedition is of a lesser magnitude than
rebellion but sedition also involves a public uprising, maybe, for political or
social ends. Under Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code, there are a
number of offenses mentioned that can fall under sedition. Whereas, under
Article 134, the purpose of rebellion is to overthrow the government or to
deprive the government of a portion of a territory, or to disrupt the
prerogatives of the President or of the legislature. Definitely, rebellion is
more
serious than sedition and that is the reason I suggested that short of actual
invasion or rebellion, which is considered as the admitted ground for the
declaration of martial law, there will be lesser grounds to justify the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee not believe that we can submit this
proposed amendment to a vote now?
FR. BERNAS: Before we discuss any additional ground for the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, may I ask for a ruling on the point
of order raised? May we reopen that considering that the matter has been
approved on Third Reading?
RULING OF THE CHAIR
THE PRESIDENT: The ruling of the Chair is that what has been approved on
Third Reading can no longer be reconsidered.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, these are now the powers of the President as
commander-in-chief. Of course, we have to harmonize the different
provisions of
the Constitution. But the fact that a majority voted to eliminate the phrase
imminent danger thereof should not be conclusive, final and unappealable.
As
stated earlier, I realized that when the others and I were insisting on the
retention of the phrase that was already in our two Constitutions, a majority
decided otherwise. I admitted that in my statement, but if we consider these
powers of the President and the majority should find some merit in these
proposed amendments, I believe there is nothing that will prevent us from
also harmonizing the provision previously approved on the Bill of Rights.
MR. PADILLA: As a matter of fact, I made a suggestion.

MR. OPLE: Point of inquiry.
MR. PADILLA: Just one more sentence, please. I thought I made the
suggestion in my remarks that the fact that we have approved on Third
Reading a certain
article of the Constitution should not prevent us later on, if circumstances so
permit and justify, from making improvements on the amendments without
considering this technicality, because otherwise we will be prevented from
improving the Constitution.
MR. OPLE: My point of inquiry consists of asking whether or not
Commissioner Padilla is appealing the ruling of the Chair.
MR. PADILLA: No, Madam President, because we are now talking about the
Article on the Executive, and we are discussing Section 15 as is or as
proposed.
I am not asking that the provision of the Bill of Rights on the suspension be
reconsidered as yet or in the future. We are not talking now of the Bill of
Rights. although I realize there must be a harmony. Two provisions cannot be
contradictory in a good Constitution. But we are discussing this Section 15
now. The fact that several weeks ago we approved the Article on the Bill of
Rights by eliminating some grounds for the suspension. I do not think that
should prevent a deliberative body like this which is considering the
Constitution to say that because of a previous decision on a prior article, we
are
now helpless, precluded, prevented and deprived of some careful
consideration of this particular section on the Article on the Executive.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, there was no attempt at all to stop any
debate on this, but if we have to debate on it. we have to do so according to
the
Rules. In order to reopen that question. there should first be a motion for
reconsideration, but before one can have a motion for reconsideration. there
must be a suspension of the Rules. So, if we pass those two hurdles, then we
discuss additional grounds for a suspension of the Rules.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am not asking now for an explanation.
It was 6:05 p.m.

When the Chair suspended the session to clarify the situation and also our
Rules with the parties concerned, the Chair regrets, that it had to maintain its
ruling that the proposed amendment of Vice-President Padilla was out of
order because it would involve a reconsideration of what had been approved
in the
Bill of Rights. So then, we can proceed to another proposed amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I respect the decision of the Chair, but I
regret to state that if any and all decisions on Third Reading will become
final,
not subject to any future deliberation even if we are restricting the power of
the President to suspend the writ, unless there be actual invasion or
rebellion that will nullify the suspension of the writ and even the declaration
of martial law and which is like a rock that cannot even be moved I am
afraid we will have a bad Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the next proposed amendment?
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
We are back to Section 15, page 7, lines I and 2. I just want to reiterate my
previous proposal to amend by deletion the phrase and, with the
concurrence
of at least a majority of all the members of Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: Who are the Commissioners with similar proposals?
MR. MONSOD: They are Commissioners de Castro, Bengzon, Natividad, de los
Reyes, Colayco, Foz, Rigos and Nolledo.

May we interpellate the distinguished Gentleman?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I request the Acting Floor Leader to tell us
about the precedence of the interpellators according to his list?
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Suarez has registered to interpellate; after him
would be Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: And then Commissioner de Castro.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I have a word on the provision on rebellion?
MR. ROMULO: Is Commissioner de Castro interpellating?
MR. DE CASTRO: I am not interpellating. I am explaining why I am one of
those in favor of eliminating the words stated by Commissioner Monsod.
MR. ROMULO: So, the Commissioner is a cosponsor?
MR. DE CASTRO: May I have my turn now?
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, the Chair has already recognized Commissioner
Suarez. So, we will call on Commissioner de Castro after Commissioner Ople.
Is that
correct?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, thank you.
The Commissioner is proposing a very substantial amendment because this
means that he is vesting exclusively unto the President the right to
determine the
factors which may lead to the declaration of martial law and the suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus. I suppose he has strong and compelling reasons
in
seeking to delete this particular phrase. May we be informed of his good and
substantial reasons?
MR. MONSOD: This situation arises in cases of invasion or rebellion And in

previous interpellations regarding this phrase, even during the discussions on
the Bill of Rights, as I understand it, the interpretation is a situation of actual
invasion or rebellion. In these situations, the President has to act
quickly. Secondly, this declaration has a time fuse. It is only good for a
maximum of 60 days. At the end of 60 days, it automatically terminates.
Thirdly,
the right of the judiciary to inquire into the sufficiency of the factual basis of
the proclamation always exists, even during those first 60 days.
MR. SUAREZ: Given our traumatic experience during the past administration,
if we give exclusive right to the President to determine these factors,
especially the existence of an invasion or rebellion and the second factor of
determining whether the public safety requires it or not, may I call the
attention of the Gentleman to what happened to us during the past
administration. Proclamation No. 1081 was issued by Ferdinand E. Marcos in
his capacity
as President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested upon him
purportedly under Article VII, Section 10 (2) of the Constitution, wherein he
made
this predicate under the Whereas provision:
Whereas, the rebellion and armed action undertaken by these lawless
elements of the Communists and other armed aggrupations organized to
overthrow the
Republic of the Philippines by armed violence and force have assumed the
magnitude of an actual state of war against our people and the Republic of
the
Philippines.
And may I also call the attention of the Gentleman to General Order No. 3,
also promulgated by Ferdinand E. Marcos, in his capacity as Commander-inChief
of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation No.
1081 dated September 21, 1972 wherein he said, among other things:
Whereas, martial law having been declared because of wanton destruction of
lives and properties, widespread lawlessness and anarchy and chaos and
disorder
now prevailing throughout the country, which condition has been brought
about by groups of men who are actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to
seize
political and state power in the Philippines in order to take over the
government by force and violence, the extent of which has now assumed the
proportion
of an actual war against our people and the legitimate government . . .
And he gave all reasons in order to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus and declare martial law in our country without justifiable
reason.
Would the Gentleman still insist on the deletion of the phrase and, with the
concurrence of at least a majority of all the members of the Congress?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, in the case of Mr. Marcos, he is
undoubtedly an aberration in our history and national consciousness. But
given the
possibility that there would be another Marcos, our Constitution now has
sufficient safeguards. As I said, it is not really true, as the Gentleman has
mentioned, that there is an exclusive right to determine the factual basis
because the paragraph beginning on line 9 precisely tells us that the
Supreme
Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof and must
promulgate its decision on the same within 30 days from its filing.
I believe that there are enough safeguards. The Constitution is supposed to
balance the interests of the country. And here we are trying to balance the
public interest in case of invasion or rebellion as against the rights of
citizens. And I am saying that there are enough safeguards, unlike in 1972
when
Mr. Marcos was able to do all those things mentioned..
MR. SUAREZ: Will that prevent a future President from doing what Mr. Marcos
had done?
MR. MONSOD: There is nothing absolute in this world, and there may be
another Marcos. What we are looking for are safeguards that are reasonable
and, I
believe, adequate at this point. On the other hand, in case of invasion or
rebellion, even during the first 60 days when the intention here is to protect
the country in that situation, it would be unreasonable to ask that there
should be a concurrence on the part of the Congress, which situation is
automatically terminated at the end of such 60 days.
MR. SUAREZ: Do we not have to make a distinction between invasion and
rebellion? The Gentleman concentrated on the matter of actual invasion and
if we are
going to go by international rules, there need not really be an actual invasion
in that concept. That can also serve as a predicate by the unscrupulous
President to declare a state of war or invasion.
MR. MONSOD: This provision previously contained the words. insurrection

and imminent danger thereof. And any interpretation of this section very
clearly will see the intention of this body that by removing those two
phrases, the right of the President is limited to invasion or rebellion. And in
the
interpellations, those have been interpreted as actual invasion or actual
rebellion.
MR. SUAREZ: Would the Gentleman not feel more comfortable if we provide
for a legislative check on this awesome power of the Chief Executive acting
as
Commander-in-Chief?
MR. MONSOD: I would be less comfortable if we have a presidency that
cannot act under those conditions.
MR. SUAREZ: But he can act with the concurrence of the proper or
appropriate authority.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. But when those situations arise, it is very unlikely that the
concurrence of Congress would be available; and, secondly, the President
will be able to act quickly in order to deal with the circumstances.
MR. SUAREZ: So, we would be subordinating actual circumstances to
expediency.
MR. MONSOD: I do not believe it is expediency when one is trying to protect
the country in the event of an invasion or a rebellion.
MR. SUAREZ: No. But in both instances, we would be seeking to protect not
only the country but the rights of simple citizens. We have to balance these
interests without sacrificing the security of the State.
MR. MONSOD: I agree with the Gentleman that is why in the Article on the
Bill of Rights, which was approved on Third Reading, the safeguards and the
protection of the citizens have been strengthened. And on line 21 of this
paragraph, I endorsed the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla. We
are
saying that those who are arrested should be judicially charged within five
days; otherwise, they shall be released. So, there are enough safeguards.
MR. SUAREZ: These are safeguards after the declaration of martial law and
after the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
MR. MONSOD: That is true.

Will the sponsor consider an amendment to his amendment? I refer to lines I
and 2 on page 7, Section 15. May I state the proposed amendment, Madam
President? It consists of substituting the word concurrence with the word
CONSULTATION, so that this particular clause will read: IN CONSULTATION
WITH
members of the Congress. And may I explain briefly my proposed
amendment to the amendment.
Madam President, the proclamation of martial law by a President, under the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Monsod and the other authors, can
now be
unilaterally made by the President. Nevertheless, it is a decision of the
highest importance and with the most critical implications for the life of
every
Filipino citizen. That is why I think the representatives of the people should
be consulted. The views of the Congress in a system of consultation will not
bind the President, but as a rational leader willing to take advice from the
elected representatives of the people, consultation need not be a useless
and
futile exercise.
May I point out, Madam President, a case in the United States, specifically
referring to the war powers resolution of 1973, which was vetoed by
President
Nixon and that veto was overridden. What did it say? Congress links its
power under the necessary and proper clause with the commander-in-chief
clause so
as to restrain the executive deployment of the United States Armed Forces. It
did so by enumerating the circumstances I am now quoting from this book
by
Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard:
. . . in which deployment abroad is permitted and by limiting such
deployment in any situation to 60 days unless Congress in the interim passes
authorizing
legislation.
The resolution which became law on November 7, 1973, upon receiving the
two-thirds vote necessary to override President Nixons veto, announced that
its
purpose was, and I quote:
To fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and
insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the
President will apply to the introduction of United States armed forces into
hostilities.
And may I just continue this paragraph, Madam President.
Such collective judgment is to be effected by heightened consultations
between the President and Congress. In every possible instance, the
consultation is
to occur before American forces are introduced into hostilities. When the
President is required to act without prior consultation however . . .
May I repeat that When the President is required to act without prior
consultation . . . because that can happen as when those to be consulted
are
not available:
. . . he shall submit within 48 hours to Congress a report in writing setting
forth:
(a) The circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States armed
forces;
(b) The constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction
took place; and
(c) The estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
So, my proposed amendment, Madam President, merely contemplates
consultations with Members of the Congress. If this is not possible, I would
like to
propose an alternative amendment which would require the President of the
Philippines, within 48 hours of the proclamation of martial law, to render a
report in writing to the Congress of the Philippines.
THE PRESIDENT: So, let us take up first the proposed amendment on
consultation. Does Commissioner Monsod accept?
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, before we take up the amendment to the
amendment, may I be given permission to say something about the
statements of
Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the Chair will first ask Commissioner Monsod if he is
accepting the amendment to the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: I regret, Madam President, that I cannot accept the proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Ople insist on his proposed amendment
to the amendment?
MR. OPLE: I will then fall back on the alternative amendment, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will take that up later.
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
The matter we are discussing now is on line 30, page 6, which says: In case
of invasion or rebellion . . . Those are the two situations by which the
President may be given the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ or
to proclaim martial law.
Let us consider invasion. In my interpellation, even during the period that we
were discussing the Bill of Rights, I was given the answer that invasion is
actual invasion. When I asked, If you see the ships coming from Japan or
somewhere else already within sight at Lingayen Gulf, is that invasion?
They
said that is not yet actual invasion because the troops of the enemy have not
yet landed.
Madam President, when we talk of invasion, we are talking of an external
force, an enemy force ready to invade the Philippines; and if I were the
invader,
the first thing that I will do is to land within the easy shores, perhaps
Lingayen Gulf, and have a vertical envelopment of Manila. There will be no
chance
for the President of the Philippines to declare martial law or to suspend the
privilege of the writ. There will be fighting right then and there, and the
rules of land warfare shall take over. The suspension of the privilege of the
writ or declaration of martial law would not fit anymore in case an enemy
force or an external force invades the Philippines because, as I said, if I were
the invading force, there will be vertical envelopment, perhaps capturing
already the President in Malacaang. That is why the proposition of
Commissioner Padilla is in order with regard to subversion, sedition or
imminent danger
thereof, because the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the
writ will become useless if there is an actual invasion of the country by an
external force.
Let us now consider rebellion. Allow me to answer Commissioner Ople. He
stated that the President of the United States is in consultation with the
Members
of Congress before the employment of U.S. forces. Certainly, they are to be
employed outside the United States. There is no invasion in the United
States,
and therefore, he has all the time to consult the Members of Congress. After
all, before I employ my forces, who are being killed? It is not the citizens
of the United States but the citizens of a Third World country in which the
U.S. would like to employ their forces.
This is the very defect of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines
and the United States. They say that they will employ their forces only in
accordance with constitutional processes. And this was what this humble
servant had been objecting to when he was in the Armed Forces that this
Mutual
Defense Treaty is useless because before the United States can help us or
can comply with the treaty, we are already conquered because they will still
have
to talk about constitutional processes in the employment of their forces here.
This is in answer to Commissioner Oples statements regarding consultations.
But how about our President when there is already actual invasion and actual
rebellion? Will he still be consulting Members of the Congress? Will he still
be asking the Congress that he be authorized to declare martial law or
suspend the writ? I do not believe that the President will have that time;
neither
shall we have the time during actual invasion.
MR. DE CASTRO: Please, I still have the floor.
Let us consider actual rebellion, Madam President. We have heard and read
in the newspapers that hundreds and hundreds of NPAs, sometimes 200 in
number,
can get into a municipality and capture that municipality, and I was even
asking: Why? What happened to our intelligence system? Do we not know
that
hundreds and hundreds of NPAs are concentrating on attacking a certain
area? And if our intelligence system and the various units that we have are
deficient, what will prevent hundreds of NPAs from marching along the
streets of Metro Manila and attacking Malacaang or the Congress? Will our
President
still have the time to consult the Congress when there is actual rebellion?
Will our President have the time to declare martial law? The first thing she
will do is to employ all the Armed Forces. A declaration of martial law may be
done later.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Gentleman yield to some questions?
MR. DE CASTRO: This is an answer. Allow me to finish, please.
THE PRESIDENT: We will call on Commissioner Nolledo later.
MR. DE CASTRO: When the Gentleman was the one talking I did not prevent
him, never. (Laughter)
MR. NOLLEDO: No, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro will please proceed.
I am just stating the facts; I am just stating what is happening, what may
happen and what we have witnessed. I am pointing out the defect of our
Mutual
Defense Treaty. When we come to it, I will expose in this hall why we do not
like the Mutual Defense Treaty of the United States, which resulted in the
installation of the military bases. I am not anti-bases; I am for not stating in
our Constitution anything about the bases in order to give the Chief
Executive and the legislative an opportunity to have their options.
Now, Commissioner Nolledo may have the floor, if the President will allow
him. (Laughter)
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I be allowed to propound some
questions to the Gentleman?
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner de Castro willing to be interpellated?
MR. NOLLEDO: Just a few questions to my distinguished classmate in the
College of Law.
MR. DE CASTRO: Willingly, to my distinguished classmate.

MR. ROMULO: But, Madam President, may I just say something before the
two engage in their interpellations. We still have another amendment which
Commissioner Ople would like to propose.
THE PRESIDENT: But the Chair said that we will take the alternative
amendment later on. We will just finish this interpellation.
MR. NOLLEDO: The questions are highly pertinent, Madam President. Thank
you very much.
Does Commissioner de Castro agree with me that the President need not
declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if
there is
actual invasion of rebellion because he is authorized under Section 15 of the
committee report to call out such Armed Forces to prevent or suppress
lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion?
MR. DE CASTRO: We are talking of the next sentence with the words in case
of invasion or rebellion. This becomes a useless sentence. In fact, the
questions of Honorable Suarez and the statements of Honorable Ople do not
fall on these two situations.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, the first sentence is very material because if there is an
invasion, the President can immediately call upon the Armed Forces.
MR. DE CASTRO: That is why I said in case of invasion . . .
THE PRESIDENT: One at a time, please
MR. DE CASTRO: That is why I said in case of actual invasion or actual
rebellion. the President will have no more time to say I declare martial law.
He
will just order the Armed Forces to go there and repel the enemy.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the argument of Commissioner de Castro
seems to indicate that the President is powerless without declaring martial
law. The
first sentence is very clear, that in case of lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion, the President may immediately call the Armed Forces to prevent or
suppress the same. And it is only when public safety requires it that the
President may decide to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the
writ
of habeas corpus. So, I would like to correct the impression that the President
has no power to meet the invasion or rebellion without the declaration of

martial law.
That is all, Madam President. Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: What I am thinking is this: The President, in actual invasion
or actual rebellion, will not have the time to declare martial law nor suspend
the privilege of the writ, much more to consult or ask Congress for a majority
rule for the suspension of the privilege of the writ. That is why since the
very beginning we have been fighting for the retention of the phrase or
imminent danger thereof because even if one sees the ships of the Russians
in the
Lingayen Gulf, so long as they do not land, that is not yet invasion. And the
President is not yet authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. That is the very reason why we lost during the debate on the
Bill of Rights.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, the Committee would like to react to that
statement on the so-called actual invasion, so that the records will be
straight
and the minutes can be consulted. It has been attributed to the Committee
that even if the ships are already leaving the foreign shores on their way to
invade or overrun the country, that is not yet actual invasion. The records
will show that I was the only member of the Committee who stated that
under the
rules of international law, we do not have to wait for an actual overrunning of
the country, otherwise it will abound. What I stated then, precisely and in
accordance with the House Conventions on the Laws of War is that any overt
belligerent act intended for the projected invasion is already actual invasion.
Hence, the mere fact that the vessel, even if it has not left the shores, are
intended, and are being refueled for the purpose of attacking the
Philippines, that is already the start of invasion; that is actual invasion. If
planes are already warming up, loaded with bombs in an airport of a foreign
country, that is already the start of invasion because that is an overt
belligered act precisely for the purpose of invading the country; otherwise,
we
will have an absurd situation where the country is already completely
surrounded by foreign warships, submarines and airplanes flying and buzzing
around
the country before we can say that that is actual invasion. Precisely, I made
it very plain that any start of any overt belligerent act for the purpose of
invading another country is not only an imminent danger; that is already
actual invasion. And that appears in the Journal

THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is seeking recognition.
MR. ROMULO: I think this matter has been discussed fully.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the matter has been sufficiently discussed.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, just one sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have to go back to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Monsod with respect to the deletion of the words and, with
the
concurrence of at least a majority of all the member of Congress.
MR. ROMULO: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: That was sought to be amended by Commissioner Ople. It
has not been accepted by the proponent, Commissioner Monsod. So, I think
we have to
vote on that first.
MR. OPLE: No, Madam President, I withdraw that amendment in favor of an
alternative amendment on the same subject.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the alternative amendment?
MR. OPLE: With the kind permission of the Chair may I proceed to read it. It is
a proposed amendment with Commissioners Davide, Nolledo and myself as
the
authors. It reads as follows: THE PRESIDENT SHALL WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT
HOURS FOLLOWING SUCH PROCLAMATION APPEAR BEFORE THE CONGRESS
TO REPORT ON HIS
PROCLAMATION IF THE SAME IS IN SESSION AND, IF IT IS NOT IN SESSION, HE
SHALL WITHIN THE SAME PERIOD CALL THE CONGRESS TO A JOINT SESSION
FOR THE PURPOSE.
So, it is just a reporting requirement w but, at the same time, it will give the
Congress the opportunity to consider its own role in helping the President
manage a rebellion or an invasion, and I think this does not in any manner
detract from the power of a President under the Monsod, et al. amendment
to
initiate the proclamation of martial law without consultation or concurrence.
But shall we begrudge the representatives of the people at least the
minimum
dignity of being involved as to why there has been such a proclamation of
martial law. Is that too much to expect? Is this asking too much of the
President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that before we can take up this proposed
amendment. we have to vote first. Do we agree to delete the phrase sought
to be
deleted?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no concurrence then the alternative proposal
would come in.
MR. OPLE: Yes, the Chair is right. Thank you.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, I would like to argue against the deletion
proposed by Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: I think it is important to consider that the imposition of martial
law is not a singular event that happened in the Philippines. There are many
instances where a state of emergency, a state of martial law, estado de sitio,
was imposed in different parts of the world: in Brazil in 1964: in Argentina
and Zaire in 1966; in Peru in 1968; in Bolivia in 1970; in Uruguay in 1972; in
Chile in 1973. The point of all of these is that the imposition of martial
law or emergency measures, in a sense, leads later on to violations of basic
guarantees and allows the militarization of politics. That is precisely the
reason why the concurrence of Congress is necessary and which, I think, is a
very strong point in the committee report. It is at the very start of the
militarization of politics where we must put a stop to it, if possible, and try to
get popular support. Because if martial rule is going to be genuinely
beneficial, it must be supported by the representatives of the people;
otherwise, what we will have is a militarization of politics, once the military
tastes power and the radicalization of social conflicts which later on lead to
different forms of resolving political problems.
Secondly, as was already pointed out very well by Commissioner Nolledo, if
there is a case of rebellion or invasion, Section 15, in fact, grants the
President the to power to stop it by calling out the Armed Forces. But what I
am objecting to is the declaration of martial law which institutionalizes the
presence of the military in civilian life and its predominance during this
period. It is at the very beginning, I believe, where the concurrence of the
representatives of the people is essential and important.
I also would like to remind ourselves that very often the doctrine of national
security is given as a reason to impose extraordinary measures which, once
begun, leads to many other violations. I believe this is something that we
must guard against from the very beginning.
Another point for us to consider is that. in fact, the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, in Article 27 thereof, allows states, of
course, to declare martial law but even asks the member-states of the United
Nations to make a written report to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations stating their specific reasons and the length of time for the
declaration of martial law.
And, lastly, I would like to remind ourselves that in the public hearings that
we had, one of the most insistent demands of our peoples was precisely the
concurrence of the legislature in the declaration of martial rule. I understand
the comments of Commissioner Monsod earlier today when he said that
because
of the bicameral system now, there are more checks and balances. I admit, I
agree, but at the same time, because of our recent history and experience of
the past, we cannot but heed the very strong clamor of the people to
precisely participate through their representatives in Congress, if and when
martial
law is deemed necessary in our land.
MR. MONSOD: May I respond, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, is there any other speaker who would like to
interpellate?
BISHOP BACANI: May I respond to Commissioner Garcias statements?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod desires to respond. Commissioner
Monsod then is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I briefly speak against the
amendment before the response of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I see the wisdom for the inclusion of this
concurrence. It is precisely the noninclusion of this provision in the 1973
Constitution that we had untold sufferings and miseries during the past
administration. If we include this provision, then we will prevent the rise of

another dictator in our midst. They say the length or the time limit will be
good for only 60 days, but 60 days will be too much for us, for our civil
liberties and human rights. It was precisely during the past administration
when arrests and incarcerations were made during the initial days of that
period. And, secondly, it is only after martial law is proclaimed that the
Supreme Court can inquire into the factual basis. So, many things can
happen
during the initial days of martial law. Even the Justices can be arrested; the
Supreme Court can be padlocked.
I agree with Commissioner Garcia when he said that in our public hearings,
the people were very supportive of the provision that the proclamation of
martial law should have the concurrence of majority of the Members of
Congress.
MR. MONSOD: In view of the fact that there were two speakers who objected,
may I request the Chair to allow Commissioner Bacani to say a few words,
and
then if I may also have a few words, Madam President?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, just a few words, Madam President. Yesterday, I
remember that during the deliberation, Commissioner Bernas stressed that
when we speak
of martial law, we revert to a classical concept of martial law, which means
that we are referring to an actual theatre of war; I repeat, an actual theatre
of war. If such be the case, then it would not be reasonable to always bind
the President, as is stipulated here, to seek the concurrence of the Congress
before he can impose martial law because the reality of an actual theatre of
war will not always allow him to do so. And if we put that condition in the
Constitution, he will not be allowed at all to impose martial law unless he
gets that concurrence which may not always be possible.
That is what I want to submit, Madam President.
MONSOD: With all due respect to the comments of my colleagues, we were

given examples here of situations in Latin America. I do not know if their
constitutions contain the safeguards that we are putting here or if the entire
system that their constitutions have set up has the safeguards that we have
in this Constitution. So, I am not prepared to accept the analogy until I see
that the situation and their constitutions as bases are the same.
Second, we have been given a spectre of non sequitur that the mere
declaration of martial law for a fixed period not exceeding 60 days, which is
subject to
judicial review, is going to result in numerous violations of human rights, the
predominance of the military forever and in untold sufferings. Madam
President, we are talking about invasion and rebellion. We may not have any
freedom to speak of after 60 days, if we put as a precondition the
concurrence
of Congress. That might prevent the President from acting at that time in
order to meet the problem. So I would like to suggest that, perhaps, we
should
look at this in its proper perspective. We are only looking at a very specific
case. We are only looking at a case of the first 60 days at its maximum. And
we are looking at actual invasion and rebellion, and there are other
safeguards even in those cases.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, the Committee feels that the amendment
which consists in the deletion of the phrase on lines I and 2, page 7, which
reads:
and, with the concurrence of at least a majority of all the members of the
Congress be now submitted to a vote on the floor.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, before we vote, may I just ask some
clarificatory questions of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. DE LOS REYES: In proposing that amendment, did Commissioner Monsod
take into account the wise words in the case of Barcelon vs. Baker, 5 Phil. 87,
where it is said that:
This power in the President is dangerous to liberty and may be abused. All
powers may be abused if placed in unworthy hands but it would be difficult
to
point any other hands in which this power would be more safe and at the
same time equally effectual.
It means that it should be given to the President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We are ready to vote now.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Monsod to delete lines I and 2 which reads: and, with the concurrence of at
least a
majority of all the members of the Congress, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)
hand.)
The results show 27 votes in favor and 11 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. SUAREZ: Normally, we are very supportive and cooperative, but may we
ask for a nominal voting on this critical matter which affects the lives of our
citizens.
NOMINAL VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Nominal voting has to be approved by one-fifth of those
present.
As many as are in favor that we proceed with a nominal voting on this
particular amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
hand.)
There being the required number, the Chair declares that a nominal voting
on this matter is in order.
The Secretary-General will call the roll.
FIRST ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Azcuna
Alonto
Bacani
Yes
Aquino
THE PRESIDENT: The Members are free to explain if they desire to do so.
COMMISSIONER BACANI EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, just two sentences. The reason I vote yes is that despite
my concern for human rights, I believe that a good President can also
safeguard human rights and human lives as well. And I do not want to unduly
emasculate the powers of the President. Besides, it will not always be
practicable, even possible, to get the concurrence of the Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify again. The yes vote is for the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Monsod.
Bengzon
Yes
Bennagen
COMMISSIONER BENNAGEN EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. BENNAGEN: I am voting against the amendment. I think the first
sentence of Section 15, lines 26 to 29, is sufficient to empower the President
to act in
those cases. And to declare martial law, I think, it is important to have the
concurrence of the representatives of the people. We cannot emasculate the
power of the President enough because the Office of the President already
has the highest symbolic content which can produce other types of power
unpredicted in the Constitution. I wish to argue that we never can
emasculate the power of the President even with all these provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the vote is yes?
MR. BENNAGEN: I am against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a no vote.
Bernas
Calderon
Rosario-Braid
Yes
Brocka
No
Castro de
COMMISSIONER DE CASTRO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, because in case of actual invasion or actual rebellion, I
do not like to see a useless President.
Colayco
Yes
Foz
Concepcion
Yes
Garcia
Davide
Yes
COMMISSIONER GARCIA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
Yes
MR. GARCIA: I am against the amendment for the following reasons: First, it
is, in fact, in support of the President that we need the concurrence of the
representatives of the people in the Congress. Martial law can be a very
divisive action. And to gather legislative support in such a critical and
difficult period is important for martial law to be understood and supported.
Second, I think it is our experience in the past and those of other Third World
countries that when one calls for such extraordinary measures as martial
rule, the entry of the military in politics or in government brings in possible
abuses which are very difficult later on to check.
And, third and this I feel very sad about one of the clearest statements
given to us by the people all over the Philippines in the public hearings we
had was that after the sad experience of martial rule, they felt that one of
the safeguards could be the concurrence of the Congress before martial law
is
declared. And I think this was a very clear statement given to us; and our
vote today simply negates the value of that voice we have heard.
Gascon
COMMISSIONER GASCON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote.
I feel that in discussing the presidency and the issue of the declaration of
martial law, we must assure the people that the evils of martial law which we
have just experienced will not happen again. And we must also assure them
that if in case such a situation occurs where we have to declare martial law,
the
people will be behind such a declaration. Therefore, I vote no.
Guingona
COMMISSIONER JAMIR EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. JAMIR: I vote no because martial law and the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus are not defenses against actual invasion and
rebellion. They are to be used only for the purpose of preventing the Filipino
citizens from doing acts that will give aid and comfort to the enemy, and it
is a dangerous presumption that the Filipino people are all treasonous.
I reiterate my vote of no.
Laurel
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Maambong
COMMISSIONER MAAMBONG EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President. I vote yes. I took note of the quotation of
my colleague, Commissioner de los Reyes, in the case of Barcelon vs. Baker,
and
I think that the safeguard in the declaration of martial law is not really to clip
the powers of the President, but for the people to really select a good
President. So, the safeguard would be in the electoral process. Also, even if
we put many safeguards in the Constitution, it will not stop a bad President
from just declaring the Constitution ineffective. So, it is really in the person of
the President that the safeguard can be achieved.
Monsod
Yes
Natividad
COMMISSIONER NATIVIDAD EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. NATIVIDAD: Unlike the 1973 Constitution, this Constitution does not allow
the President to declare martial law when there is imminent danger in the
country. He can only declare martial law when there is act invasion or
rebellion, and this is subject to legislative and judicial review; therefore, it
can
be reversed at a time. For these reasons, I vote yes.

Nieva
Yes
Nolledo
COMMISSIONER NOLLEDO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. NOLLEDO: I vote yes for two basic reason Madam President: 1) because
of the Congressional power to revoke the proclamation at any time eve
before the
lapse of 60 days, in fact. even the day following the suspension of the
privilege of the writ or the declaration of martial law; and 2) adverting to the
opinion of Commissioner Rene Sarmiento the declaration of martial law or
the suspension of the writ habeas corpus will not suspend the operation of
the
Constitution and, therefore, the declaration will not render inoperative the
provisions of the Bill of Right Thus, the citizens are duly protected even in
a star of martial law.
Thank you.
Ople
COMMISSIONER OPLE EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. OPLE: My vote is yes. May I explain this briefly, Madam President.
It is a tribute to this Constitutional Commission that early on, major decisions
had been made strengthening the foundations of civil rights. In connection
with the proclamation of martial law, this draft Constitution, in its present
form, will not mean the abolition of the Congress. It will mean that the
Congress will continue to exist. It will mean that the Constitution remains in
full force and effect, including the Bill of Rights. It also means that no
President may invoke the shield of political acts in order to exempt himself
from judicial review, and any citizen may initiate this in terms of
determining the sufficiency of the factual bases. And I think, in any number
of forms, other countervailing safeguards have been introduced in this
Constitution that will make it extremely difficult for a future President to
abuse this power of declaring martial law eve without the concurrence of
Congress. However, immediately after the voting, as the Chair has been
notified, would like to propose a brief amendment that will help meet some
of the
concerns expressed here by those who are voting against this amendment.
Padilla
COMMISSIONER PADILLA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I vote yes because the Monsod amendment
has included my own proposed amendment. I regret to state, however, that if
the
declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus can only be based on actual invasion and actual rebellion, we
might as well eliminate the provisions on suspension and proclamation
because it will present an absurd situation. There is already an actual theatre
of
war and yet, we will still be talking about declaring martial law or suspending
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. I regret that the situation to
me looks very absurd unless we grant the President. as Commander-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces, to exercise the powers of that office when public safety
demands its not only in cases of actual invasion or rebellion but even
imminent danger thereof.
Thank you.
Quesada
COMMISSIONER QUESADA EXPLAINS HER VOTE
MS. QUESADA: I vote no. I believe that this very important decision of the
President should really have the concurrence of the representatives of the
people. And I agree with the reasoning of Commissioner Garcia that, in fact,
when the President consults with the people through their representatives in
the Congress, they will be more supportive of such a decision, if indeed it has
this danger to the people. So, I feel very sad about this particular
decision that has been approved by the body.
Rama
No
Regalado
Yes
Reyes de los
COMMISSIONER DE LOS REYES EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. DE LOS REYES: May I explain my vote, Madam President.
My vote is yes. The power of the President to impose martial law is doubtless
of a very high and delicate nature. A free people are naturally jealous of
the exercise of military power, and the power to impose martial law is
certainly felt to be one of no ordinary magnitude. . But as presented by the
Committee, there are many safeguards: 1 ) it is limited to 60 days; 2)
Congress can revoke it; 3) the Supreme Court can still review as to the
sufficiency
of the actual basis; and 4) it does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution. To repeat what I have quoted when I interpellated
Commissioner Monsod,
it is said that the power to impose martial law is dangerous to liberty and
may be abused. All powers may be abused if placed in unworthy hands. But
it
would be difficult, we think, to point out any other hands in which this power
will be more safe and at the same time equally effectual. When citizens of
the State are in arms against each other and the constituted authorities are
unable to execute the laws, the action of the President must be prompt or it
is of little value. I vote yes.
COMMISSIONER RIGOS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I vote yes. But this vote is related to the
understanding that Congress by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members,
in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension. In
other words, if the Members of Congress do not concur with the decision of
the President, they can revoke such proclamation anytime they wish.
Rodrigo
Yes
Rosales
Yes
Romulo
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
COMMISSIONER SARMIENTO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I vote against the amendment. I am sad
that the members of the Committee. after days of deliberation, made a
radical
turn-about. Madam President, dictatorship was the cause of untold sufferings
to our people. I just could not describe the cries and the tears of the
widows, orphans, victims of tortures, salvaging and hamletting. Madam
President, never again should there be a dictatorship. To me, the deletion of
this
provision would pave the way for the rise of another dictator. So, I vote
against the amendment.
COMMISSIONER SUAREZ EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, if I can only vote one hundred times, I will
vote one hundred times against this provision. The past is prologue; I am
rather
frightened about the potential exploitation of this awesome constitutional
power.
Sumulong
COMMISSIONER SUMULONG EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SUMULONG: Madam President, I vote yes because, as pointed out by

Commissioner Rigos, Section 5 of this resolution clearly provides that
Congress, by a
vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special sessions,
may revoke such proclamation or suspension. In other words, whenever
Congress believes that the situation is such that public safety no longer
requires the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the writ of
habeas
corpus, Congress can do it.
Thank you.
Tadeo
COMMISSIONER TADEO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. TADEO: I vote no dahilan sa mga sumusunod: Una, sinabi ko noon sa
mga public hearings na lahat ng report ay aayusin at ang desisyon ng
sambayanan ay
mayroong impact sa Con-Com. Itoy walang hunos-diling paglabag sa
kagustuhan ng sambayanang Pilipino.
Pangalawa, ang phrase na with the concurrence ay isang safeguard, isang
safety valve sa isang loophole. At sa nangyari sa araw na ito, mayroong mga
pangamba sa aking sarili at nalulungkot ako.
Tan
Tingson
COMMISSIONER TINGSON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I vote yes for two reasons: 1) I do not want
to see further emasculation of the Presidents power especially in actual time
of danger against our nations security; 2) now that we have opted for a
presidency without further reelection in his lifetime, the future President of
our
country will become a statesman who will act and pray for the next
generation rather than become a politician who only thinks of the next
election.
I vote yes.
Treas
Uka
COMMISSIONER UKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. UKA: Madam President, after hearing the reasons of those who voted yes
and in order to save time, I vote yes.
Villacorta
COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I vote in the negative for two reasons: 1)
no single official, not even the Commander-in-Chief, should be given the
prerogative to deprive millions of his countrymen of their basic rights; 2) we
should fully trust the judgment of the legislators, our peoples
representatives, and their ability discern clear dangers to public safety and
national security and to make the appropriate decision expeditiously.
Villegas
Yes
How about the Madam President, will she cast her vote?
THE PRESIDENT EXPLAINS HER VOTE
THE PRESIDENT: I am voting no because this has been a promise that I had
personally made during the time of the Marcos regime, the promise to the
people
that if ever the Opposition comes into power, this will be one of the things
that we will do; that is, limit the power of the President in suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and declaring martial law. (Applause)
SECOND ROLL CALL
Aquino
Bernas
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those
who have not registered their votes.
Abubakar
Calderon
Alonto
Guingona
Aquino
Tan
Bernas
Treas
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 28 votes in fat and 12 against; the Monsod
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I think we are in imminent danger of
collapsing from fatigue, and so, move that we adjourn until tomorrow at ninethirty in
the morning.
morning.
It was 7:26 p.m.

Footnotes:
R.C.C. NO. 44
Thursday, July 31, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Lugum L. Uka.
PRAYER
MR. UKA. My friends, let us bow our heads and pray:
Bismillah Ir Rahman Ir Rahim
Most merciful and compassionate Almighty God, Who guides the destinies of
men and nations, we, the forty-eight (48) Members of this Constitutional
Commission of 1986, humbly ask You to guide us on the right path. Grant us
the wisdom to enable us to draft a Constitution that will bring about real
democracy, unity, love, brotherhood, peace and prosperity among our
people, Christians, Muslims and tribal communities alike.
Instill in us the noble belief expressed in all Your Holy Books that all mankind,
regardless of race, color or creed, are but one single nation, one-big
family, founded by Adam and Eve whom You have created as mankinds
common ancestors.
Fill our hearts, Almighty God, with the message of brotherhood, love and
unity which You commanded Your holy messengers or prophets to preach
unto every
creature and which Moses, Jesus and Mohammad did.
Make us more tolerant, kind, forgiving and peaceful so that peace, love and
prosperity for all mankind shall prevail throughout the world.
Hasten, O Lord, the dawn of that new day when all nations will sing together
in perfect unison, Peace on earth, goodwill to all men. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
ROLL CALL
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present *
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present *
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present *
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we dispense with the reading
of the Journal of the previous session.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we dispense with the reading of
the Journal of the previous session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion
is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of
yesterdays session.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we approve the Journal of
yesterdays session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we proceed to the Reference of
Business? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Q. Rebueno Hodreal for the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa
Pilipinas, submitting its position favoring the Filipinization and structuring of
broadcast media to discourage monopolies, and crossmedia owner-ship
provided that radio and television be treated as one single medium separate
from either
print or cinema.
Communication from Mr. Sergio Z. Esmilla, Jr. of the University of the
Philippines College of Music and one thousand seven hundred fifty others,
seeking
the inclusion of a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn
from the moment of conception.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter signed by Dr. Miraflor G. Parpan and six others from the Kalinga-Isneg
Self-Rule and Self-Determination Movement (KISSM), Province of
Kalinga-Apayao, opposing the creation of an Autonomous Cordillera as
proposed by the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA)/Cordillera Bodong
Association (CBA)
because both spring from the CPP/NPA which seek to control the Cordillera
Region into a consolidated secured base of the NPA communist ideology
operation
in the Luzon area.
Letter from Mr. Lorenzo M. Taada, former Senator of the Philippines, saying
that the foreign bases in our country must go and our foreign policy makers
must be so mandated by the Constitution.
Letter from Mr. Alexis V. Pardo for the GSIS Lawyers Guild, proposing the
transfer of the compensation planning function of the Ministry of the Budget
to
the Civil Service Commission, representation of government employees in
the CSC, strengthening of the security of tenure clause, and the government
employees right to self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining
Letter from Mr. Clem Manalo Leano of the GSIS, requesting the inclusion of a
provision that government properties classified as immovable and real estate
properties sold and conveyed to private and juridical entities shall be subject
to escheat proceedings.
Letter from Mr. Ramon A. Tagle, Jr. of the Family Planning Organization of the
Philippines, submitting a resolution passed by its National Office,
proposing the inclusion of provisions providing for the strengthening of the
family as a basic social institution, recognizing the sacredness and
inviolability of human life, and condemning abortion in all forms.
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Manuel A. Sanico of 4107 Corregidor-Pitogo, Makati, Metro
Manila, proposing a provision for the award of home lots to the poor.
Letter from Mr. Teofilo C. Ramos, Sr. of the Iglesia ni Kristo, stating that the
Iglesia ni Kristo is unequivocally for the retention of the phrase the
separation of church and state in Section 15. Article XV of the 1973
Constitution and attaching a copy of the editorial of July-August 1986 issue of
the
PASUGO.
Letter from Mr. Ben Rafols and one hundred seventy-four others of United
Students for a Better Central, Central Philippine University, Iloilo City,
proposing that the State should not only recognize but affirm the vital role of
the youth in nation building and that the State should also promote respect
for human rights.
To the Committee on Preamble. National Territory and Declaration of
Principles.
Communication from Mr. Herman R. Juatas for Philippine Unemployed Labor
Association, proposing a transitory provision constituting the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 as an interim legislature for the purpose of enacting
measures designed to counter problems of unemployment and poverty.
Resolution No. 44, series of 1986, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Biliran,
Subprovince of Biliran, Leyte, suggesting a provision making the Subprovince
of
Biliran a regular province.
Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Ambrosio B. Padilla, transmitting a
letter of Mr. Bienvenido A. Castillo of 50 Mckinley, Pulilan, Bulacan, opposing
the creation of autonomous governments for Cordillera and Mindanao.
Letter from Sr. Mary Clemencia Flora, RGS, for the Rural Missionaries of the
Philippines, supporting the Program for Genuine Land Reform proposed by
the
Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (KMP).
Letter from Lunaz El Mismo, 264 N. Burlington Avenue, Los Angeles,

California, proposing a six-year term for the President and Vice-President,
English as a
national language, dual citizenship for Filipino Americans, and the retention
of U.S. military bases, among others.
Letter from Mr. Rene S. Santiago, proposing a provision that would set a time
limit on the life of government agencies and corporations.
Letter from Mr. Pablo U. Ibe of Philippine National Bank, Macabebe Branch,
Pampanga, proposing a six-year term for the President and Vice-President
with
one reelection but with a total tenure of 10 years.
To the Committee on the Executive.
Letter from Mr. Ed Samson and eleven others of the Christian Education
Committee, Negros District Conference of the United Church of Christ in the
Philippines, opposing the move to make religious instruction in public schools
compulsory.
Communication from Ms. Laureana Guanzon, Tinio Alindada of Pamanang
Salinlahi Foundation, Inc., 59 Connecticut St., Northeast Greenhills, San Juan,
Metro
Manila, submitting proposed inclusions and exclusions in the new
Constitution, mainly on education.
MR. RAMA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF
(Article on the Executive) *
Continuation
MR. RAMA. I move that we continue the consideration of Resolution No. 517,
the Article on the Executive.
We are now in the period of amendments and the subject for amendment is
Article 15. Commissioner Rigos had an anterior amendment which was
forgotten or
bypassed yesterday So, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized to
present his anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we continue the consideration of
Proposed Resolution No. 517 on the Article on the Executive? (Silence) The
The honorable Chairman of the Committee on the Executive and the
members of said committee will please occupy the front table so as to
receive the proposed
amendments.
MR. SUMULONG. The members of the Committee are requested to come
forward.
THE PRESIDENT. The Committee Chairman, Commissioner Sumulong, ViceChairman Regalado, and Committee members: Commissioner Rama,
Calderon, Alonto,
Concepcion, Foz, Maambong, Jamir, Davide, Natividad, Sarmiento, Aquino,
Bernas and Lerum will please come forward.
REV. RIGOS. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS. Madam President, a number of Commissioners, particularly this
Member and Commissioners Nolledo, de los Reyes and Maambong believe
that Section
9 should be harmonized with Section 5 which we approved yesterday.

Section 9, page 4, reads:
In case of permanent disability, death, removal from office or resignation of
the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the
unexpired term.
We believe this sentence should be retained, and the rest of the sentences
up to line 18 should be deleted and in their place, we propose that the
following be inserted: IN CASE OF PERMANENT DISABILITY, DEATH, REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE OR RESIGNATION OF BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND VICEPRESIDENT, THE SENATE
PRESIDENT OR, IN CASE OF HIS INABILITY, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL THEN ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE PRESIDENT
AND VICE-PRESIDENT
SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND QUALIFIED. Madam President, the members
of the Committee have copies of this proposal.
MR. AZCUNA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA. Will the honorable proponent allow an amendment to his
amendment?
REV. RIGOS. Yes, may we hear that proposal?
MR. AZCUNA. The last portion of the amendment reads: UNTIL THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND
QUALIFIED. Would the Commissioner
allow it to be amended to read: UNTIL THE PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT
SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND QUALIFIED? Instead of AND, we use OR
because either
the President or the Vice-President would fill the gap.
REV. RIGOS. I think we can accept that but we will see how the Committee
reacts to the proposed amendment to the amendment.
MR. AZCUNA. Yes, Madam President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the Committee ready to react to this proposed
amendment of Commissioner Rigos?
MR. REGALADO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recognized.

MR. REGALADO. Our copies here speak of in the absence of the Senate
President. Did the Gentleman in his amendment, make a change in the
phraseology?
REV. RIGOS. That is the same wording in Section 5.
MR. REGALADO. So, it will read: IN CASE OF PERMANENT DISABILITY, DEATH,
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OR RESIGNATION OF BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND
VICE-PRESIDENT, THE
SENATE PRESIDENT OR, IN CASE OF HIS INABILITY THE SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL THEN ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE
PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT
SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND QUALIFIED.
The Chairman told me to announce that the Committee accepts the
amendment.
REV. RIGOS. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Are there any comments on this? Is the proposed
amendment clear to the Commissioners?
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI. I would like to ask Commissioner Azcuna what the point of
his amendment is. If both are not able to continue the discharge of their
duties,
will a Vice-President alone be elected or be chosen by the people without any
reference to the election of a President?
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair believes the Committee can answer the question.
FR. BERNAS. The explanation is that there may be obstacles to the election
or qualification of the President. So, while waiting for the President to be
elected or for the President to qualify, if the Vice-President has already
qualified, then he acts as President until the President qualifies. The
amendment, I understand, is only up to line 10. Is that correct?
REV. RIGOS. It seems that lines 11 to 18 will become unnecessary already.
BISHOP BACANI. May I address the members of the Committee again, Madam
President. I think the eventuality referred to is permanent disability of both
the
President and the Vice-President.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, so that even if elections for the President and VicePresident are held, there is a possibility that there may be a delay in the
announcement of the results of the election of the President. But if in the
meantime the Vice-President has been announced, has been proclaimed and
qualified, then he takes over.
BISHOP BACANI. Thank you.
MR. REGALADO. I would like to seek a further clarification from Commissioner
Rigos because the amendment intends to delete also lines 11 to 18. As
formulated, this is the order of succession: either the Senate President will be
Acting President or in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall then act as !resident. My question is: What happens
when that Acting President, either the President of the Senate or the Speaker
of
the House of Representatives, becomes incapacitated, or dies or becomes
permanently disabled or resigns from office as contemplated on lines 11 to
18?
REV. RIGOS. Then I will limit my proposed amendment up to line 10.
MR. REGALADO. And lines 11 to 18 which refer to the Acting President under
circumstances therein stated will remain.
REV. RIGOS. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other clarification?
Are we ready to vote on this proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos on
Section 9, which has been accepted by the Committee?
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, because of the amendment of the sentence
in the first paragraph of Section 9, the second paragraph should also be
amended
accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Rodrigo seeking some clarification?
MR. RODRIGO. I am not ready to propose amendments. I just want to reserve
my right to make the corresponding corrections or amendments on the
second
paragraph of Section 9, lines 11 to 18, which I will submit later on, so that it
will conform to the first paragraph of Section 9, as amended.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. This is only for clarification. The section sought to be amended
would refer to a vacancy occurring during the term.
Yesterday, we discussed a situation where the vacancy occurred at the
commencement of the term and we provided for the Senate President and
the Speaker to
assume. It may happen that at the commencement of the term, it would be
the Speaker or the Senate President who will be the Acting President, but
that
occupancy of the position as Acting President may go within the term of the
President.
If we still insist on the Senate President or the Speaker, precisely, the Acting
President at the time may himself be the Speaker or the Senate President.
So, the proposal would become meaningless if that particular eventuality
occurs. Remember that this is a succession to the Acting President who
himself may
be the Senate President or the Speaker of the House. So, what would be the
effect of the proposal? We will be providing a succession by somebody who is
himself to be replaced because of his death, removal or incapacity.
So I believe the present wording is adequate because it would now refer to
other persons than those who may be acting because of the vacancy in the
offices
of the President and the Vice-President at the inception of the term. I wonder
if the Committee will have to reassess the acceptance of the proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended for a few minutes to allow the
Committee to confer with Commissioners Davide and Rigos.
It was 10:14 a.m.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS. The observations made by Commissioner Davide were based on
the assumption that lines 11 to 18 were also deleted But they have not been
deleted,
so I think Commissioner Davide is withdrawing his observations.
MR. DAVIDE. I withdraw my observations if the last paragraph has really been
retained.
MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we be recognized for a few questions?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ. There is mention about the Acting President occupying the
position without a specific duration or limitation of period. I assume that
since
both the President and the Vice-President would have been removed from
office or would have died or would have been permanently disabled, a new
election
would be called. Does the Committee have any provision regarding the
period within which that presidential or vice-presidential election would be
called?
MR. REGALADO. Commissioner Suarez may refer to Section 10 for that
contingency. However, with the amendment yesterday on page 5, line 4.
which is the
continuation of Section 10, the first word seventy was amended to read
180 days as proposed by Commissioner Guingona, and which the
Committee accepted.
MR. SUAREZ. In other words? the presidential election or vice-presidential
election, as the case may be, interpreted in the light of the provisions of
Section 10, would be held as provided therein, except subject to that other
amendment that it should not be called within the period of 18 months
before
the expiration of the term of the President or the Vice-President, as the case
may be. Is my understanding correct, Madam President?
MR. REGALADO. Within the period of six months; we stated 180 days.
MR. SUAREZ. Meaning within that period, the election should be called?
MR. REGALADO. No, Madam President, it should not be called because it is
too close anyway to the next presidential election.
MR. SUAREZ. So, during that period of six months, the Acting President shall
continue in office?
MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ. Will that possibility preclude an Acting President from running
for the position of either President or Vice-President in the scheduled
elections?
MR. REGALADO. It will not. The Committee believes it will not preclude the
possibility because he is only an Acting President. He may actually be the
Speaker or he may be the Senate President.
MR. SUAREZ. In other words, he would be qualified to run for the position of
either President or Vice-President?
MR. REGALADO. There being no disqualifications; there is an election . . .
MR. SUAREZ. That is understood, of course.
Thank you for the clarification.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO. May I ask some questions for clarification. In the case of the
temporary disability of the President and Vice-President, I asked yesterday
whether or not the Senate President, who acts as President, would lose his
position as Senate President and also as Senator, and the answer was No,
he
does not lose it. So, after he is through as Acting President, he goes back as
Senate President and as Senator. And the same is true of the Speaker.
Section 9 deals with permanent disability. So, if both the President and VicePresident die. become permanently disabled or are removed from office, the
Senate President becomes permanent President.
MR. REGALADO. No, he is only in an acting capacity.
MR. RODRIGO. He is only Acting President until the end of the term or until a
President is elected?
MR. REGALADO. Until a President shall have been elected under the
circumstances envisioned in Section 10.
MR. RODRIGO. So, the Senate President and the Speaker, in the same way,
do not lose their positions as Senate President and Speaker and as Member
of the
Senate and of the House, respectively?
MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President, that is correct.
MR. RODRIGO. Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. We are ready to vote now.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos
on Section 9, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
hand.)
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be
recognized.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I want to ask the Committee a clarifying
question on line 4 of page 7 as to whether the meaning here is that the
majority of
all the Members of each House vote separately. Is that the intent of this
phrase?
MR. REGALADO. That was intended to be proposed today as a committee
amendment, but since the Gentleman has taken up the matter, the
Committee would accept
the insertion on line 6, after the word session of the words VOTING
SEPARATELY and a comma (,)
MR. MONSOD. May I also suggest to the Committee that perhaps the same
clarification be made on page 2, lines 21 and 22.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I quite realize that perhaps the Committee
has accepted that phrase.
MR. REGALADO. Not yet.
FR. BERNAS. We would like a little discussion on that because yesterday we

already removed the necessity for concurrence of Congress for the initial
imposition of martial law. If we require the Senate and the House of
Representatives to vote separately for purposes of revoking the imposition of
martial
law, that will make it very difficult for Congress to revoke the imposition of
martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. That is just thinking aloud. To balance the fact that the President acts
unilaterally. then the Congress voting as one body and not separately can
revoke the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
MR. MONSOD. In other words, voting jointly.
FR. BERNAS. Jointly, yes.
MR. MONSOD. May we be advised by the Committee of this. perhaps after we
have discussed it thoroughly because we do need a clarification of this
sentence.
FR. BERNAS. No, it is not just a question of the Committee discussing it but
perhaps the whole body should discuss this. I personally would favor their
voting jointly, not separately.
MR. RODRIGO. May I comment on the statement made by Commissioner
Bernas? I was a Member of the Senate for 12 years. Whenever a bicameral
Congress votes, it
is always separately.
For example, bills coming from the Lower House are voted upon by the
Members of the House. Then they go up to the Senate and voted upon
separately. Even on
constitutional amendments, where Congress meets in joint session, the two
Houses vote separately.
Otherwise, the Senate will be useless; it will be sort of absorbed by the
House considering that the Members of the Senate are completely
outnumbered by
the Members of the House. So, I believe that whenever Congress acts, it
must be the two Houses voting separately.
If the two Houses vote jointly, it would mean mixing the 24 Senators with
250 Congressmen. This would result in the Senate being absorbed and
controlled
by the House. This violates the purpose of having a Senate.
FR. BERNAS. I quite realize that that is the practice and, precisely, in
proposing this, I am consciously proposing this as an exception to this
practice
because of the tremendous effect on the nation when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended and then martial law is imposed. Since
we have
allowed the President to impose martial law and suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus unilaterally, we should make it a little more easy for
Congress to reverse such actions for the sake of protecting the rights of the
people.
MR. RODRIGO. Maybe the way it can be done is to vest this function in just
one of the Chambers to the House alone or to the Senate alone. But to
say, by
Congress, both House and Senate voting jointly is practically a vote by the
House.
FR. BERNAS. I would be willing to say just the vote of the House.
MR. RODRIGO. That is less insulting to the Senate. However, there are other
safeguards. For example, if, after 60 days the Congress does not act, the
effectiveness of the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ ceases. Furthermore, there is recourse to the Supreme
Court.
FR. BERNAS. I quite realize that there is this recourse to the Supreme Court
and there is a time limit, but at the same time because of the extraordinary
character of this event when martial law is imposed, I would like to make it
easier for the representatives of the people to review this very significant
action taken by the President.
MR. RODRIGO. Between the Senate being absorbed and controlled by the
House numerically and the House voting alone, the lesser of two evils is the
latter.
MR. BENGZON. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON. I would like to ask for clarification from the Committee, and I
would like to address this to Commissioner Bernas.
Suppose there is a variance of decision between the Supreme Court and

Congress, whose decision will prevail?
FR. BERNAS. The Supreme Courts decision prevails.
MR. BENGZON. If Congress decides to recall before the Supreme Court issues
its decision, does the case become moot?
FR. BERNAS. Yes, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON. And if the Supreme Court promulgates its decision ahead of
Congress, Congress is foreclosed because the Supreme Court has 30 days
within which
to look into the factual basis. If the Supreme Court comes out with the
decision one way or the other without Congress having acted on the matter,
is
Congress foreclosed?
FR. BERNAS. The decision of the Supreme Court will be based on its
assessment of the factual situation. Necessarily, therefore, the judgment of
the Supreme
Court on that is a transitory judgment because the factual situation can
change. So, while the decision of the Supreme Court may be valid at that
certain
point of time, the situation may change so that Congress should be
authorized to do something about it.
MR. BENGZON. Does the Gentleman mean the decision of the Supreme Court
then would just be something transitory?
FR. BERNAS. Precisely.
MR. BENGZON. It does not mean that if the Supreme Court revokes or
decides against the declaration of martial law, the Congress can no longer
say, no, we
want martial law to continue because the circumstances can change.
FR. BERNAS. The Congress can still come in because the factual situation can
change.
MR. BENGZON. Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioners Aquino and Bennagen would like to comment

on this section as requested by the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, I would like to introduce an amendment
pertaining to Section 15, page 7, line 7. Between the words suspension and
or,
insert the phrase WHICH REVOCATION SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE BY THE
PRESIDENT. After we have deleted the requirement of previous concurrence
by the Congress,
the recent imperative for us is to put a cap on the presidential prerogatives
in the exercise of martial law powers.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I would be in favor of that, but I wonder if we
could settle the matter we were discussing earlier.
MS. AQUINO. I was called upon so I thought I was in order already.
FR. BERNAS. May I request the Floor Leader; whether he could settle the
matter of voting separately first before we go to the amendment of
Commissioner
Aquino. I would also like to comment on that.
MR. ROMULO. In that case, Commissioner Bennagen, who has general
remarks, would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you, Madam President.
Last night, after we voted on the provision to remove the concurrence of
Congress with the power of the President to declare martial law, I had a
nightmare
and I could not sleep. So this morning, I got here very early and wrote down
some random thoughts. Let me read from what I wrote:
Random Thoughts of a Dreamy-eyed Commissioner
I got into the Con-Com with a great deal of cynicism. It is a cynicism borne
out of my social science training which tells me that a Constitution is just a
piece of paper and in spite of its lofty objectives, it cannot remake the
society out of which it emerged. It can only maintain that society.
As early as June 3, I wrote in my own journal:
A constitution can be any of two possibilities:

1. A pro-people document suggestive of executive, legislative and judicial
structures and processes that truly respond to the needs and aspirations of
our
people; namely, the peasants, workers, urban poor, national minorities and
other oppressed sectors;
2. An ideological document that promises a lot to the poor but which in
reality only strengthens the structures of domination.
But as I talked with many of the Commissioners and as I listened and
observed research techniques I learned as a social scientist I began to
entertain
the possibility of a constitution worthy of our people. Such a change of
attitude was reinforced when I listened to the daily prayers so full of hope,
so
full of compassion, so full of courage, and more so when the preamble was
approved. I voted against it on procedural grounds but nonetheless accepted
the
decision of the majority since it, too, was full of hope, of compassion and of
love.
Even so, I maintained a healthy skepticism. Could we, as the cliche now
goes, all be born-again democrats? Could we change our habits that easily?
Have we
learned enough from the trauma of martial rule? Or shall we soon forget the
very context of the need for a new Constitution: the tyrannical past, the
euphoric present and the optimistic future?
There are no easy answers. But in a talk I gave at the UP last week, I gave
the observation that at the very least, we will have an anti-dictatorship
constitution. I said that we were so revulsed by the Marcos dictatorship that
provisions will be made to obviate its repetition.
After yesterday, after the Commissioners voted to grant the President the
power to declare martial law without the concurrence of the Congress, it
appears
that I spoke too soon.
I voted against the amendment because I thought that no one, all by himself,
should be able to declare martial law. It should have at least the concurrence
of the peoples representatives to serve as a check against the machinations
of a potential dictator.
For strange are the ways of power, and it does not lend itself readily to
prediction. It is addictive. Who can forget that adage: power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely? In my view, once martial law is declared,
it would generate its own dynamics, create its own rules until it runs its
own course, a democratic constitution, notwithstanding.
The provision could suggest to any power-hungry ruler or clique tremendous
possibilities for a power grab. That possibility can be prepared for as indeed
it happened in the case of Marcos. Invasion and rebellion can be invented
and set up to justify imposition of martial law and once martial law is
declared and the apparatus of terror is set up, what is a Constitution for?
It can be mutilated, it can be reworded, it can take on various forms to
legitimize martial rule.
In a study of tyranny, we are told: The longer and tougher the struggle for
power, the greater the prospect of stability and durability of the resulting
dictatorship. The Marcos dictatorship is proof to this.
Perhaps I am overreacting. But I cannot understand why a constitution
coming in the wake of a dictatorship should include a provision that could
pave the
way for its resurgence. I find the idea incomprehensible. And as I ransacked
my mental cabinet for explanation, I can only think of one thing It appears
that our consciousness has been so subjugated that we can no longer
understand what it means to be free. We have turned against ourselves,
forging our own
chains, constructing our own cage. We have mistaken captivity for freedom.
But perhaps it is not too late. Let us break free from that subjugated
consciousness and try to know ourselves better by examining the structures
and
processes that have prevented us from making this dash to freedom. This is
an act of courage which we all must do, if not for ourselves, then for the
future generations.
MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA. Thank you, Madam President.
In connection with the inquiry of Commissioner Monsod, and considering the
statements made by Commissioner Rodrigo, I would like to say, in reply to
Commissioner Bernas, that perhaps because of necessity, we might really

have to break tradition. Perhaps it would be better to give this function of
revoking the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ or
extending the same to the House of Representatives, instead of to the
Congress. I
feel that even the Senators would welcome this because they would feel
frustrated by the imbalance in the number between the Senators and the
Members of
the House of Representatives.
Anyway, Madam President, we have precedents or similar cases. For
example, under Section 24 of the committee report on the Legislative,
appropriation,
revenue or tariff bills, and bills authorizing increase of public debt are
supposed to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. Besides,
we
have always been saying that it is the Members of the House of
Representatives who are mostly in touch with the people since they
represent the various
districts of our country.
THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Guingona proposing an amendment or just
commenting?
MR. GUINGONA. I will propose an amendment. I would like to get the reaction
of the Committee first, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS. The Committee has not had the opportunity to discuss this, and
we would like the body to discuss this. My own personal reaction is against
the
Senate and the House voting separately. I would tend to accept the
amendment the Gentleman is proposing and the reasons he has brought up.
MR. GUINGONA. Was Commissioner Monsod making an amendment?
THE PRESIDENT. May the Chair first clarify this from Commissioner Monsod?
Is Commissioner Monsod proposing any amendment to this particular
sentence, lines
4 to 6, about the voting?
MR. MONSOD. I would prefer to have the vote of both Houses because this is
a very serious question that must be fully discussed. By limiting it alone to
the House of Representatives, then we lose the benefit of the advice and
opinion of the Members of the Senate. I would prefer that they would be in
joint
session, but I would agree with Father Bernas that they should not be voting
separately as part of the option. I think they should be voting jointly, so

that, in effect, the Senators will have only one vote. But at least we have the
benefit of their advice.
THE PRESIDENT. In other words, as reported in the committee report, the
Congress would by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members . . .
MR. MONSOD. That is right, but maybe we need a clarificatory phrase like
voting jointly.
THE PRESIDENT. Are there any other comments on this?
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Sarmiento would like to
comment on this subject.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO. Just briefly. This Commission is known for breaking
traditions; we have adopted new systems like the system of recall in the
local
governments. referendum and initiative. May I suggest that the Committee
reexamine its position on the matter of voting separately? Let us break
traditions, as Father Bernas said, to safeguard our peoples rights and protect
their liberties. Since we have deleted a very important provision, the
concurrence of at least the majority of all the Members of the Congress,
may we plead to all the Members that instead of adopting the proposal of
voting
separately, we adopt the proposal of the honorable Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD. My proposal is VOTING JOINTLY.
MR. SARMIENTO. I thank Commissioner Monsod. May I join Commissioner
Monsod and Commissioner Guingona that the Congress. voting jointly,
should have the
power to revoke the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus. In this way, we make it easy for the peoples representatives
to cut short a power which is very potent that could be the subject of abuse,
and in the words of Commissioner Bennagen, could open the way for the
resurgence of tyranny and dictatorship. I support then the proposal of
Commissioners Bernas, Monsod and Guingona.
MR. RODRIGO. I was the one who proposed that the two Houses vote
separately because if they vote jointly, the Senators are absolutely
outnumbered. It is
insulting to the intelligence of the Senators to join a session where they know
they are absolutely out-numbered. Remember that the Senators are elected
at
large by the whole country. The Senate is a separate Chamber. The Senators
have a longer term than the Members of the House; they have a six-year
term.
They are a continuing Senate. Out of 24, twelve are elected every year. So, if
they will participate at all, the Senate must vote separately. That is the
practice everywhere where there are two chambers. But as I said, between
having a joint session of the Senate and the House voting jointly where it is
practically the House that will decide alone, the lesser of two evils is just to
let the House decide alone instead of insulting the Senators by making
them participate in a charade.
MR. REGALADO. May the Committee seek this clarification from
Commissioner Rodrigo? This voting is supposed to revoke the proclamation
of martial law. If
the two Houses vote separately and a majority is obtained in. the House of
Representatives for the revocation of the proclamation of martial law but that
same majority cannot be obtained in the Senate voting separately, what
would be the situation?
MR. RODRIGO. Then the proclamation of martial law or the suspension
continues for almost two months. After two months, it stops. Besides, there is
recourse
to-the Supreme Court.
MR. REGALADO. Therefore, that arrangement would be very difficult for the
legislative since they are voting separately and, for lack of majority in one of
the Houses they are precluded from revoking that proclamation. They will
just, therefore, have to wait until the lapse of 60 days.
MR. RODRIGO. It might be difficult, yes. But remember, we speak of the
Members of Congress who are elected by the people. Let us not forget that
the
President is also elected by the people. Are we forgetting that the President
is elected by the people? We seem to distrust all future Presidents just
because one President destroyed our faith by his declaration of martial law. I
think we are overreacting. Let us not judge all Presidents who would
henceforth be elected by the Filipino people on the basis of the abuses made
by that one President. Of course, we must be on guard; but let us not
overreact.
Let me make my position clear. I am against the proposal to make the House
and the Senate vote jointly. That is an insult to the Senate.
THE PRESIDENT. So, will Commissioner Rodrigo please formalize an
amendment to this particular section so that we will know what we are
discussing?
MR. RODRIGO. The sentence will then read: The Congress, by a vote of at
least the majority of all its members VOTING SEPARATELY in a regular or
special
session. . .
THE PRESIDENT. So, that is what we are now discussing.
MR. RODRIGO. I thought somebody already made that amendment.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I think there is a prior motion, the motion of
Commissioner Monsod.
MR. ROMULO. That is correct, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. That is not a motion; he was only seeking clarification.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, I am not insisting on my proposal.
THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.
MR. GUINGONA. As a matter of fact, I am willing to join Commissioner
Monsod and Commissioner Sarmiento. I want to further add that the reason
why I had
thought of the House of Representatives is that it is in the House that we
have sectoral representation.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, if the Committee is ready, I suggest that
Commissioner Monsod be allowed to present his amendment now.
THE PRESIDENT. That is why we are trying to clarify from Commissioner
Monsod whether he was seeking an amendment or just a clarification from
the
Committee.
MR. MONSOD. No, Madam President, when I stood up the second time, I said
that I was making a proposal. My amendment is the insertion of VOTING
JOINTLY so
that the sentence will read: The Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of
all its members VOTING JOINTLY. . .
Madam President, I was one of those who proposed the elimination of lines 1
and 2 yesterday, but I also think that there should be a good system of check
and balance, and voting jointly would be one safeguard left to the people to
revoke or amend the suspension.
That is my amendment, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO. Will the Gentleman yield to a question?
MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO. So, in effect, if there is a joint session composed of 250
Members of the House plus 24 Members of the Senate, the total would be
274. The
majority would be one-half plus one.
MR. MONSOD. So, 148 votes.
MR. RODRIGO. And the poor Senators would be absolutely absorbed and
outnumbered by the 250 Members of the House. Is that it?
MR. MONSOD. Yes, that is one of the implications of the suggestion and the
amendment is being made nonetheless because there is a higher objective
or value
which is to prevent a deadlock that would enable the President to continue
the full 60 days in case one House revokes and the other House does not.
The proposal also allows the Senators to participate fully in the discussions
and whether we like it or not, the Senators have very large persuasive
powers
because of their prestige and their national vote.
MR. RODRIGO. So, the Senators will have the quality votes but Members of
the House will have the quantity votes. Is that it?
MR. MONSOD. The Gentleman is making an assumption that they will vote
against each other. I believe that they will discuss, probably in joint session
and
vote on it; then the consensus will be clear.
MR. RODRIGO. So, we will vote on that amendment now.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes.
MR. RODRIGO. I propose an amendment to the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. A proposed amendment to the amendment of Commissioner
Monsod?
MR. RODRIGO. Yes. This is not first choice. But just to save the Senators from
this insulting, humiliating situation, my amendment is to insert THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES instead of Congress.
THE PRESIDENT. Is that acceptable?
MR. RODRIGO. The line will read: The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, by a
vote of at least a majority of all its members . . .
MR. MONSOD. I regret, Madam President, that I cannot accept that because I
believe that the advice and discussion of the Senators would be very useful
in
that forum.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, one question please.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO. We were working on this amendment yesterday and
Commissioner Monsod proposed that instead of Congress, it should be the
Senate. He convinced
me that I agree with him that only the Senate will be the one to revoke or
extend martial law or the suspension of the writ. What happened last night?
MR. MONSOD. I was discussing with the Gentleman the possibilities and what
we wanted to avoid was a deadlock. That is why the options were either the
Senate alone, the House alone, or the joint Congress. Yesterday, I was
inclined towards the Senate alone but after hearing our colleagues, I am
convinced
that perhaps we do need to have-an effective system of check and balance.
So, if the Gentleman will forgive me, I am proposing now that it should be
joint
and I am convincing the Gentleman to join me.
MR. DE CASTRO. Last night, I was convincing the Gentleman to include the
House of Representatives. Now, he is for the House of Representatives. I am
for
the proposition of Commissioner Rodrigo on the ground that this is only
proclaimed by the President when the President is eyeball to eyeball with
the
enemy, when there is actual invasion and actual rebellion and it is limited
only to 60 days.
THE PRESIDENT. We will vote on that.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Padilla has an amendment to propose.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA. Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished sponsor, Commissioner Monsod, agree to an
amendment to his amendment that instead of the word JOINTLY it be
SEPARATELY and let
the body vote? Because if the proposal on a joint assembly is passed or
approved, then it would be too late to ask for a separate voting.
Madam President, I am in favor of the views expressed by Senator Rodrigo
not because I have been a Senator but because there should be separate
voting. The
fear is that if the House votes to revoke but the Senate votes not to revoke
the proclamation, there would be a deadlock. Assuming that is the situation,
then the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus would last for 60 days. Definitely, we should not stop or interrupt or
make less effective the declaration by the President when there is no
majority of both Chambers of the Congress. In other words, unless there be a
clear
situation where the President has made a mistake in his declaration of
martial law, then that martial law situation or the suspension of the writ of
habeas
corpus should remain until 60 days or unless the Supreme Court decides
otherwise in an appropriate proceeding.
MR. MONSOD. I regret I cannot accept it because those are mutually
exclusive alternatives. In any case, if the body decides to vote down my
amendment, then
the body can consider other options.
THE PRESIDENT. Will the Chair please be informed by Commissioner Rodrigo
that his formal amendment is for the House of Representatives?
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, my amendment to the amendment was not

accepted.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, but the Gentleman is proposing an amendment. I am
just clarifying that.
MR. RODRIGO. Yes. My proposed amendment to the amendment which was
not accepted is that of the House of Representatives alone.
THE PRESIDENT. Because the Chair believes that we should vote first on the
Gentlemans amendment if that is a formal amendment which has not been
accepted.
MR. RODRIGO. But it was an amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Which has not been accepted.
REV. RIGOS. Madam President.
REV. RIGOS. Just a question on this proposed amendment of Commissioner
Monsod.
If the proposed amendment of Commissioner Monsod is not approved, does
it mean that the interpretation of the recommendation of the Committee is
that the
Congress will have to vote separately in case the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Monsod is not approved?
THE PRESIDENT. Not necessarily, because there is an amendment to include
VOTING JOINTLY. As it is. the phrase VOTING JOINTLY is not there although
the
interpretation is that it is supposed to be a joint session.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, if the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Monsod is not approved and is voted down, there is still the possibility of
giving
the power to revoke to either the Senate or the House of Representatives
alone.
REV. RIGOS. Yes, or separately.
FR. BERNAS. Or separately.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, I have one question to the Committee.

MR. DE CASTRO. Section 15, page 7, beginning on line 4, states:
The Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, or extend . .
.
When the members of the Committee proposed such sentence what did they
have in mind, voting separately or voting jointly?
FR. BERNAS. This was originally formulated on the understanding that we will
have one body, one House.
MR. DE CASTRO. A unicameral body.
FR. BERNAS. At that time, it was only a unicameral body; but now that we
have a bicameral body the Committee would like the Commission to decide
the
matter.
MR. DE CASTRO. The paper I am holding is a substitute resolution adjusted to
the bicameral legislature.
FR. BERNAS. That is correct.
MR. DE CASTRO. But the Gentleman was unable to correct that portion?
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO. The parliamentary situation is, I presented an amendment to
the amendment which was not accepted, so we should vote on my
amendment to the
amendment. However, I would like to state that I am not really happy about
this amendment. To me it is just choosing between the lesser of two evils. So,
I
withdraw my amendment to the amendment to give way to the amendment
by Commissioner Padilla.
MR. BROCKA. Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Brocka is recognized.

MR. BROCKA. Before we vote on this amendment, I want to express my
observation. I listened to Commissioner Rodrigo and I could not believe my
ears when he
spoke of his reasons for objecting to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Monsod-the humiliation and insult to the Senate. We are
talking about a
possible situation, a declaration of martial law, wherein the very basic and
fundamental rights of the citizens are involved, and yet he talks about the
humiliation of 24 people! I just cannot believe it! We do not talk about
humiliation. Whether martial law is declared for one day or 60 days, the fact
is,
when martial law is declared the very basic and fundamental human rights of
the citizenry are taken away from them. It does not matter whether it is one
day, one hour, or 60 days. So, I would like to express my agreement to
Commissioner Monsods amendment because yesterday we already took
away the condition
of prior concurrence of Congress; and now, Commissioner Monsod agrees
that we have to provide a better safeguard by inserting this particular
amendment of
a joint decision of Congress.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I was alluded to so may I be recognized?
MR. RODRIGO. May I say a few words. When I said that it is a humiliation. I
was not referring to just 24 individuals. These are 24 individuals elected by
the whole nation, each and every one of them. So, any humiliation of any of
those individuals is a humiliation of their constituents. We seem to forget
that these people are elected by the whole country.
Madam President, we are departing from a practice, a practice which is
accepted worldwide; a practice which is very logical, very reasonable that
when we
have two Houses, two Chambers one composed of 250 Members and the
other composed of 24 Members they must be coequal. And the only way
they can be
coequal is if they vote separately, because once we make them vote jointly,
then the smaller group is absorbed. It becomes like a drop in the bucket to
the
bigger group. This is most awkward. To me, this is ridiculous. It is against the
practice in every republican form of government to have two legislative
Chambers and make them vote jointly instead of separately. And I repeat,
this is a constitution we are drafting here. Its provisions will be scrutinized by
the whole world. And to have a provision such as this is to have a provision
which would be ridiculed. That is the reason I feel very strongly against
approving such a provision.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo has withdrawn his proposed
amendment to give way to the amendment of Commissioner Padilla. May we
have that amendment
first, Commissioner Padilla?
MR. OPLE. May I speak for one minute against the amendment, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.
MR. OPLE. Earlier, this Commission voted for a bicameral system and there
are consequences following that decision. When we voted for a bicameral
system,
we accepted the consequence that each Chamber should be able to act
separately and, as Commissioner Rodrigo has said, this is the key to the
equality of
both Chambers. Neither Chamber should be disparaged by its own creator
in this case, the Constitutional Commission, where there is a possibility to
establish equality. Commissioner Monsod is worried about a deadlock, but
that is the consequence of choosing a bicameral system. There are
possibilities of
deadlocks. However, that leaves precisely a zone for the political skills of the
President. He must exercise leadership too. Why are we in advance getting
so solicitous about sparing the President the exercise of his leadership skills
so that he can overcome potential deadlocks? A bicameral system is always
fraught with the potential for a deadlock but the tradeoff, precisely, is checks
and balances.
MR. NOLLEDO. Will the Gentleman yield to two or three questions?
MR. OPLE. Very gladly, Madam President, although I only hope to speak for a
minute, but I welcome it.
MR. NOLLEDO. Before I ask the questions, I would like to state that the
stature of the Senators is, to my mind, immaterial in this case; that there is
no
humiliation if they join the Members of the Lower House in joint session
assembled to determine whether or not to revoke the declaration of martial
law.
THE PRESIDENT. May we know what is the question?
MR. NOLLEDO. The first question is: Is it not true that there is a crying need
to limit the presidential power to declare martial law?
MR. OPLE. I believe Commissioner Nolledo knows best what this Commission
has done to insure that these powers will be checked for appropriate checks
and
balances.
MR. NOLLEDO. And that, therefore, the paramount consideration in the
Monsod amendment is to limit the presidential power to declare martial law.
MR. OPLE. I do not see how the Senate voting separately and the House
voting separately, although meeting in joint session assembled, can detract
from the
checks and balances that we have built into the proclamation of martial law.
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, the purpose of the amendment is really to
set forth a limitation because we have to avoid a stalemate. For example, the
Lower
House decides that the declaration of martial law should be revoked, and
that later on, the Senate sitting separately decides that it should not be
revoked. It becomes inevitable that martial law shall continue even if there
should be no factual basis for it.
MR. OPLE. Madam President, if this amendment is adopted, we will be held
responsible for a glaring inconsistency in the Constitution to a degree that it
distorts the bicameral system that we have agreed to adopt. I reiterate: If
there are deadlocks, it is the responsibility Of presidential leadership,
together with the leaders of both Houses, to overcome them.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair believes that this has been sufficiently discussed
by the two Gentlemen.
MR. OPLE. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair believes that the Committee submitting this
report is of the opinion that the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Monsod should be
first voted upon. Is that correct?
MR. RAMA. Yes, Madam President.

MR. PADILLA. Madam President.
MR. PADILLA. We have proposed an amendment to the amendment, and that
is, VOTING SEPARATELY instead of VOTING JOINTLY. Since the proponent,
Commissioner
Monsod, has not accepted our amendment to the amendment, I ask that the
vote be on our amendment to the amendment. That means the Congress
meeting
separately. but need not be successively. It can be at the same time, but
separately.
FR. BERNAS. But, Madam President, that is not an amendment to the
amendment, but rather a vote against the amendment. It is the complete
opposite of the
amendment proposed by Commissioner Monsod. So, let us vote on the
amendment of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, would the Committee consider an
amendment to make the action to be taken by the House of Representatives
an amendment to the
amendment, and not a vote against the amendment?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair suggests that we take that up later. Let us find out
first what the consensus of the body is regarding this particular action of
the Congress voting jointly or voting separately. We will now submit in
accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on the Monsod
amendment to
clarify line 5 of page 7.
Those who are in favor of Congress VOTING JOINTLY in revoking the action
of the President regarding the proclamation or suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus or proclamation of martial law, please raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those in favor of VOTING SEPARATELY, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
The results show 24 votes in favor of VOTING JOINTLY and 13 in favor of
VOTING SEPARATELY the Monsod amendment is approved.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, may I propose an amendment?

MR. RODRIGO. On Section 15, page 7, line 4, I propose to change the word
Congress to HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES so that the sentence will read:
The HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in
regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension or
extend
the same if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires
it.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, the proposed amendment is really a motion
for reconsideration. We have already decided that both Houses will vote
jointly.
Therefore, the proposed amendment, in effect, asks for a reconsideration of
that vote in order to give it to the House of Representatives.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President the opposite of voting jointly is voting
separately. If my amendment were to vote separately, then, yes, it is a
motion for
reconsideration. But this is another formula.
MR. DE CASTRO. May I ask the proponent a question, Madam President?
MR. RODRIGO. Gladly.
MR. DE CASTRO. What is the rationale of the amendment?
MR. RODRIGO. It is intended to avoid that very extraordinary and awkward
provision which would make the 24 Senators meet jointly with 250 Members
of the
House and make them vote jointly. What I mean is, the 24 Senators, like a
drop in the bucket, are absorbed numerically by the 250 Members of the
House.
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, may I speak briefly against the proposed
amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, we need the wisdom of the Senators.
What is at stake is the future of our country human rights and civil
liberties. If we
separate the Senators, then we deprive the Congressmen of the knowledge
and experience of these 24 men. I think we should forget the classification of
Senators or Congressmen. We should all work together to restore
democracy in our country So we need the wisdom of 24 Senators.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, may I just answer This advice of the 24
Senators can be sought because they are in the same building. Anyway, the
provision,
with the amendment of Commissioner Monsod. does not call for a joint
session. It only says: The Congress by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session it does not say joint session. So. I
believe that if the Members of the House need the counsel of the Senators,
they can always call on them; they can invite them.
SR. TAN. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN. Have we not spent enough time on the 24 Senators? May we now
vote on the amendment?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Rodrigo. please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
amendment is lost.
The Chair hopes that this particular issue can now be laid to rest. The body
has voted that Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members.
voting jointly in regular or special session. may revoke such proclamation or
suspension.
MR. OPLE. May I have an anterior amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is this on another section?
MR. OPLE. It is an insertion of a sentence on line 5, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Rama has an anterior
amendment to Commissioner Oples amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rama is recognized.

MR. OPLE. Thank you.
MR RAMA. Madam President, this is an amendment to line 4. After the words
The Congress, I propose to insert the clause WHICH SHALL BE
AUTOMATICALLY
CONVENED IF NOT IN SESSION, and then continue with the phrase by a vote
of at least a majority . . . The reason for this, Madam President, is that there
is a period in a year during which Congress is not in session. We talk about
Congress revoking a proclamation; we talk about some kind of checks on the
President, but during this 30-day period of the year, there is no Congress to
make such revocation. A scheming President could very well time his
declaration of martial law during that period when Congress is not in session.
This is a 30-day period and if his declaration of martial law is based upon
fabricated facts or rigged events, or is not in accordance with the provisions
in the Constitution, such President could get away with murder for 30 days
without the process of revocation. So, it is necessary that Congress shall be
able to convene automatically if not in session.
Another reason is that it is only the President who can call a special session.
So, a President who is hellbent on declaring martial law in order to
militarize the people could very well not call for the session and that is going
to be a legal issue. So, to avoid this confusion, it is necessary for
clarity that we place this amendment, to wit: Congress. WHICH SHALL BE
AUTOMATICALLY CONVENED IF NOT IN SESSION. by a vote of at least a
majority of all
its Members . . .
MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may I be recognized?
MR. SUAREZ. May we ask the distinguished Floor Leader a few questions?
MR. RAMA. Gladly Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ. As I recall, in the Article on the Legislative. the Congress is
supposed to be in session the whole year except during that period of 30
days
before the next regular session.
MR. RAMA. That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ. So that would preclude the matter of automatic convening in
the case of a regular session. Let us take the case of the special session,
because
I share the proponents sentiment about this. Therefore the special session
could be called only within that interregnum period of 30 days.
MR. RAMA. That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ. That is prior to the next regular session. So the proponent is
speaking about that situation, Madam President.
MR. RAMA. This particular 30-day period when the Congress is not in session.
MR. SUAREZ. That is what the Gentleman has in mind.
MR. RAMA. That is what I have in mind.
MR. SUAREZ. That is not in connection with the regular session.
MR. RAMA. Not in connection with the regular session.
MR. SUAREZ. Will the proponent accept the suggestion to put that clause
after the words special session?
THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Suarez read the provision?
MR. SUAREZ. . . . in regular or special session WHICH SHALL BE,
AUTOMATICALLY CONVENED.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment acceptable to Commissioner Rama?
MR. RAMA. It might be a little awkward.
MR. SUAREZ. But that is the sense of what we had in mind.
MR. RAMA. That would be the sense, but for clarity and elegance, we should
place this after the word Congress.
MR. SUAREZ. Can we leave that to Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RAMA. Yes, we can leave this to Commissioner Rodrigo, because it is
Congress which shall be convened.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE. May just comment on the discussion about the special session.
Is it not that the special session can be called only within the 30 days
preceding the commencement of a regular session? Under the proposal on
the legislative power, the law itself may also determine the length of the
session,
in between the commencement on the fourth Monday of July and the
beginning of the 30 days preceding the next regular session. So, special
sessions can be
convened at any time between these two periods, not just the remaining 30
days.
I would propose that there should be a separate sentence to be inserted
probably between lines 8 and 9 to read as follows: THE CONGRESS, IF NOT IN
SESSION,
SHALL WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOLLOWING SUCH PROCLAMATION OR
SUSPENSION, CONVENE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES WITHOUT NEED
OF A CALL. This would be
consistent with what had earlier been approved in the matter of a vacancy in
the office of the President and the Vice-president. Instead of automatic, it
should be WITHOUT NEED OF A CALL.
THE PRESIDENT. Is that accepted?
MR. RAMA. We accept the amendment, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA. I would just like to know what happens if a special session
cannot be convened, or if a regular session is called off because majority of
the
Members of both Houses have been arrested, or that the Congress has been
padlocked upon declaration of martial rule.
MR. RAMA. That is precisely one of the risks and hazards that we have to
take. That is why I wanted to reduce that hazard because, if u e allow the
President 30 days of martial rule, which is the exercise of martial law powers,
which in itself is a replacement of all the civil powers and which
militarize the country there is a bigger risk that these Congressmen would
not be able to hold the session or would get arrested. That is ,the rationale of
the amendment-that as soon as the President declares martial law, there
must be an automatic convening of Congress in session in order for it to
exercise
the right to revoke or not or to scrutinize the circumstances of martial law
and its validity.
MS. QUESADA. But there is a possibility then that the Congress cannot be
convened because many of its Members have already been arrested.
MR. RAMA. There is always that possibility; that is why I am narrowing that
chance.
MS. QUESADA. Yesterday, the understanding of many was that there would
be safeguards that Congress will be able to revoke such proclamation.
MR. RAMA. Yes.
MS. QUESADA. But now, if they cannot meet because they have been
arrested or that the Congress has been padlocked, then who is going to
declare that such a
proclamation was not warranted?
MR. RAMA. That is why this amendment would strengthen the safeguard,
because under the present provision the President can call or can proclaim
martial law
during the time that Congress is not in session.
MS. QUESADA. One of the assurances was that there were enough
safeguards that the President would not just be able to use that power
without some other
conditions. So, are there any parts of the Constitution that would so protect
the civilians or the citizens of the land?
MR. RAMA. Yes, there are safeguards.
MR. REGALADO. May I also inform Commissioner Quesada that the judiciary
is not exactly just standing by. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus, if the
Members are detained, can immediately be applied for, and the Supreme
Court shall also review the factual basis. This is not exactly beyond solution.
With
regard to the worry that the Congress will be padlocked, we can never
padlock Congress. We can padlock the building, but not Congress because
the Members
can always convene in Barasoain Church or under a squad tent or in the
middle of the coconut groves. That would still be Congress.
MS. QUESADA. They said it happened in 1972; I was out of the country then.
According to the people who were here then, the building was indeed
padlocked.
These are some of my misgivings over the decision we made yesterday. I
would like to see now how it fits into our deliberations on the calling of a
session, when the session could not or might not have been called, because
many people would have been arrested. I am just projecting some of the
possibilities in the future, maybe not in the immediate future, but in the
many years to come and which we may not be able to project at this point in
time.
THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Quesada satisfied or not?
MR. BENGZON. May I just comment on what Commissioner Quesada said.
MR. BENGZON. If and when the fears or apprehensions of Commissioner
Quesada would happen, then what we will have is a military takeover. At that
point, it
will already be a complete military takeover. Legally and technically,
Congress will not be padlocked because the Congressmen and the Senators
can meet
even in the middle of the streets, but in actuality if and when that happens,
then it becomes a military takeover.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD. I was one of those padlocked out of circulation in the old
Congress. That cannot happen now because of line 15, page 7 of Section 15
which
states:
the privilege of the Writ.
The old Congress was unable to meet because we had no power to have a
rump session, but here there is a constitutional authority which says that the
declaration of martial law does not supplant the functioning of the legislative
assembly or Congress. So, whether we padlock the building or not, the
Members will meet elsewhere and that would still be Congress, to confirm
what Commissioner Regalado said.
THE PRESIDENT. May we have again the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide to the amendment of Commissioner Rama?
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Madam President.

It will be a new paragraph to be inserted between lines 8 and 9 on page 7,
which will read as follows: THE CONGRESS, IF NOT IN SESSION, SHALL
WITHIN TWENTY
FOUR HOURS FOLLOWING SUCH PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION, CONVENE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES WITHOUT NEED OF A CALL.
THE PRESIDENT. Has this been accepted by Commissioner Rama?
MR. RAMA. Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. So, this is a joint amendment of Commissioners Rama and
Davide. What does the Committee say?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of
Commissioners Rama and Davide which has been accepted by the
Committee? (Silence) The
MR. OPLE. Madam President.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized
for an amendment on the same section.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE. Thank you very much, Madam President.
This proposed amendment is a sentence to be added on line 4, following the
phrase martial law. We do not quite substitute for the concurrence of
Congress
that was deleted, but it will provide Congress with the basis for revoking or
not a presidential proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ
of habeas corpus And so, this amendment reads as follows: WITHIN FORTYEIGHT HOURS OF THE PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW OR THE SUSPENSION
OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS THE PRESIDENT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT, IN PERSON OR IN
WRITING, TO THE CONGRESS.
With this amendment, we build a reporting requirement so that the President
can be held responsible for that report. Later on, when the Congress wants to
revoke the proclamation, the basis will be his report as checked against other
facts and the perceptions of the situation by the Members of Congress.
THE PRESIDENT. Will the proponent kindly read again the new sentence.
MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. On Section 15, page 7, line 4, after law, I
propose to add a new sentence which reads as follows: WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT
HOURS OF THE PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW OR THE SUSPENSION OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS THE PRESIDENT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT, IN
PERSON OR IN WRITING, TO
THE CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. It is accepted by the Committee, it being understood that
the report or the statement therein is not conclusive on Congress.
MR. OPLE. Yes, but the President will be held accountable for his report. And
on that basis, his proclamation can be revoked later.
MR. PADILLA. I feel that the intention of the amendment is good. But
considering that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus or the
declaration of
martial law is now only dependent on actual rebellion and actual invasion,
what the country needs is action rather than a mere report. When we require
the
President to make a report within forty-eight hours, some valuable hours may
be spent on a mere paper report when the circumstances demand action. I
would
favor that proposal, Madam President, if we were not yet in actual invasion or
actual rebellion.
MR. OPLE. Madam President, I appreciate the concern of Commissioner
Padilla about the difficulties of a President caught in an actual invasion or
rebellion, but would he begrudge the representatives of the people under
this amendment to report to them what he has done which will be of
momentous
importance for all Filipinos? The proposal does not quite substitute for
concurrence, but I think the dignity of the nation through the representatives
of
the people in Congress requires that at least the President should tell them
what he did and why he did so, so that the basis for an evaluation and
appreciation of his proclamation of martial law is laid down and can be
checked if necessary.
I thank the Committee for accepting my amendment, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, just to be consistent, I propose that
instead of suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, we say SUSPENSION OF
THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT. Will that be acceptable?
MR. OPLE. I accept the amendment, although the Committee now has
jurisdiction.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment clear enough to the Commissioners?
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Sarmiento wishes to be
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, may I briefly speak against the
amendment. I think it is very impractical and unnecessary for the President
to give his
report to Congress. During an actual invasion or rebellion, it is very possible
that before the President can give his report, Congress has already been
bombed or destroyed. I think it is practically unwise, unnecessary and
impractical for the President to give his report. I object, Madam President.
MR. OPLE. Madam President, I do not think that in any circumstances, the
President of the Philippines should be excused from tendering his report to
the
representatives of the people. He must find the time to do that in satisfaction
of the dignity and the right of the people to knob through their
representatives.
BISHOP BACANI. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I also object to the Proposal. That report
can be done through television and the mass media very effectively, if it is
still possible to do it at all. I think the proposal is not necessary.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. The body is now ready to vote on the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Ople.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment please raise their hand. (Several
The results show 23 votes in favor, and 11 votes against; the proposed
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized for an amendment on line 7.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, I will try to resurrect my proposed
amendment which must have been lost in the heap of words. My proposed
amendment pertains
to Section 15, page 7, line 7. Between the words suspension and or, I
propose to insert the clause WHICH REVOCATION SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE
BY THE
PRESIDENT. My concern is that if this proviso is not included, it may be
deemed as if the power of Congress to revoke will have to go through the
veto
powers of the President. It is my humble submission that martial law
prerogatives of the President should be effectively capped after we have
eliminated
the requirement of the previous concurrence of Congress.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the proposed amendment acceptable to the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, the Committee accepts this amendment.
MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may I be recognized for one question only?
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President.
Will the proponent limit the insertion to the right of revocation and not to the
right of extension?
MS. AQUINO. I have conferred with Commissioner Azcuna who would qualify
the right of extension later on.
MR. SUAREZ. Why do we not do it as a package deal and just state that there
will be no presidential veto exercise insofar as a revocation or extension is
concerned?
MS. AQUINO. I am not in full agreement with that.

MR. SUAREZ. This is my humble suggestion.
MS. AQUINO. My qualification would pertain only to the powers of Congress
to revoke, but not to extend. Anyway, the Committee has jurisdiction already
over
my proposed amendment.
FR. BERNAS. In answer to Commissioner Suarez, the President does not have
to override the extension. All that martial law does is to give the President
extraordinary powers. So. if he does not like the extension, then all he has to
do is not to exercise the extraordinary powers.
MR. SUAREZ. No, but the extension this time is being given by Congress.
Madam President, and not by the President. In other words, martial law
extension is
not a presidential act any further. It becomes a congressional act.
FR. BERNAS. Precisely, Madam President. Martial law powers precisely consist
in an assumption of extra-ordinary powers, so that even if Congress says,
We
are giving you extraordinary powers, if the President does not want to
exercise them, so what is the point?
MR. SUAREZ. So, what is the point of extending it on the part of Congress if
the President feels it should not be extended any further if you are going to
deprive the right of the President to exercise the power of the veto?
FR. BERNAS. The extension may be relevant with respect to the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, but as far as martial law powers
are concerned, it really does not mean much.
MR. SUAREZ. Let us say a situation develops where Congress, without
seeking the prior consent and approval of the President, would extend the
suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus. In such a situation, we would consider the
President free to stop or prevent the further suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus. Is my thinking correct, Madam President?
FR. BERNAS. Let us ask Commissioner Concepcion.

MR. CONCEPCION. I did not get the question clearly. Will the Gentleman
kindly repeat it.
MR. SUAREZ. For example, the Congress, without first seeking the advice,
approval, and consent of the President, would extend for an indefinite period
the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, do I take it from the statement and
observations of Commissioner Bernas that in such a situation, the President
is
not under obligation to heed the act of Congress?
MR. CONCEPCION. In my personal opinion, the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ or to declare martial law is an executive power. The
power is
essentially an executive power, although it may be subjected by the
Constitution, insofar as its exercise is concerned, to an action of Congress.
But
Congress cannot exercise it.
MR. SUAREZ. Under the proposal, Madam President, Congress cannot
exercise it, but can it extend the exercise in spite of the fact that it does not
even
count with the consent, appraisal, and knowledge of the President?
MR. CONCEPCION. No, but what has been exercised by the President has
already expired.
MR. SUAREZ. Yes.
MR. CONCEPCION. So, an extension, without the consent of the President or
the concurrence of the President, is the exercise of an executive power by
Congress.
MR. SUAREZ. Under this proposal, it appears that the President cannot even
veto this. For example, the Congress will extend it for six months; must the
President comply with that and extend an executive respect for that thinking
or act of Congress? He cannot terminate the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus because the period had already been extended by Congress.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, may we settle first the question of revocation
before we go to the extension?
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you; I yield.
THE PRESIDENT. At this juncture, we would like to inform the body that we
have several groups of students here with us. They come from the UP
Sociology
class, St. Bridgets School, the Ateneo pre-law class, and the Philippine
Womens University High School. We welcome them. (Applause)
We have before us the Aquino amendment. Does Commissioner Colayco
want to comment on this?
MR. COLAYCO. I would like to know from Commissioner Aquino if her proposal
covers the right of the President, in effect, to counter the action of Congress
revoking the proclamation of martial law.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, the proposal in effect forecloses the
possibility of the President revoking the powers of Congress to revoke, such
that the
amendment would read: WHICH REVOCATION SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE BY
THE PRESIDENT.
MR. COLAYCO. I see; thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. In other words, the final action is that of Congress.
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, may I propose an amendment to the
amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO. Is Commissioner Aquino willing to adopt the word VETO
instead of the words SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE, so that the clause would
read: WHICH
REVOCATION SHALL NOT BE VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT?
MS. AQUINO. The substance is the same, but the Committee already has
jurisdiction over my amendment. It may be just a matter of style.
MR. REGALADO. The Committee wishes to inform Commissioner Sarmiento
that what was envisaged here is a proclamation. A veto is exercised over a
bill or a
law. A proclamation is not subject to veto, that is why we instead used the
term SET ASIDE.
MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you for that information.
I withdraw my amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of

Commissioner Aquino which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized.
MR. AZCUNA. Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to offer an amendment to Section 15, line 7 of page 7. After the
word or, insert a comma (,) and add the phrase: AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
PRESIDENT, so that the amended portion will read: may revoke such
proclamation or suspension which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President, or
AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PRESIDENT extend the same if the invasion or
rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
May we know the reaction of the Committee? The reason for this, Madam
President, is that the extension should not merely be an act of Congress but
should
be requested by the President. Any extension of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should have the
concurrence of
both the President and Congress. Does the Committee accept my
amendment?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts that amendment because it will, at
the same time, solve the concern of Commissioner Suarez, aside from the
fact that
this will now be a joint executive and legislative act.
MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.
I concur with the proposal of Commissioner Azcuna but may I suggest that
we fix a period for the duration of the extension, because it could very well
happen that the initial period may be shorter than the extended period and it
could extend indefinitely. So if Commissioner Azcuna could put a certain
limit to the extended period, I would certainly appreciate that, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Azcuna say?

MR. AZCUNA. Madam President, I believe that that is a different concept and
should be voted on separately so as not to confuse the issue on the
limitation
of the period with the extension. My amendment would merely require that
any extension should have the concurrence of both the President and the
Congress.
Commissioner Suarez may propose an amendment to limit the period of the
extension.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment of Commissioner Azcuna a separate
sentence?
MR. AZCUNA. No, Madam President. It is just a comma (,) after or and the
addition of the words AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PRESIDENT.
MR. DAVIDE. I would like to propose that instead of AT THE INSTANCE OF,
we use UPON THE PETITION OF. It will be upon the petition of the President to
confirm the fact that any extension is just a matter of his request, not his
prerogative.
THE PRESIDENT. Not on his own initiative?
MR. DAVIDE. No, not on his own initiative, Madam President.
MR. AZCUNA. I believe the word petition is more proper for the courts,
Madam President. Maybe with the intention put on the record that this is not
mandatory upon Congress to grant an extension simply because the
President is requesting it, I am willing to change it to INITIATIVE instead of
INSTANCE
but not PETITION because petition has more relevance to courts. So it will
be UPON THE INITIATIVE of the President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is that acceptable to the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. It is acceptable, Madam President.
Commissioner Azcuna which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears

Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
May we suggest that on line 7, between the words same and if, we insert
the phrase FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS, which would
equal the
initial period for the first declaration just so it will keep on going.
THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?
MR. REGALADO. May we request a clarification from Commissioner Suarez on
this proposed amendment? This extension is already a joint act upon the
initiative
of the President and with the concurrence of Congress. It is assumed that
they have already agreed not only on the fact of extension but on the period
of
extension. If we put it at 60 days only, then thereafter, they have to meet
again to agree jointly on a further extension.
MR. SUAREZ. That is precisely intended to safe guard the interests and
protect the lives of citizens.
MR. REGALADO. In the first situation where the President declares martial
law, there had to be a prescribed period because there was no initial
concurrence
requirement. And if there was no concurrence, the martial law period ends at
60 days. Thereafter, if they intend to extend the same suspension of the
privilege of the writ or the proclamation of martial law, it is upon the
initiative of the President this time, and with the prior concurrence of
Congress.
So, the period of extension has already been taken into account by both the
Executive and the Legislative, unlike the first situation where the President
acted alone without prior concurrence. The reason for the limitation in the
first does not apply to the extension.
MR. SUAREZ. We are afraid of a situation that may develop where. the
extended period would be even longer than the initial period, Madam
President. It is
only reasonable to suggest that we have to put a restriction an the matter of
the exercise of this right within a reasonable period.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, following that is the clause extend the
same if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
That by itself suggests a period within which the suspension shall be
extended, if the invasion is still going on. But there is already the cutoff of
60-day period. Do they have to meet all over again and agree to extend the
same?
MR. SUAREZ. That is correct. I think the two of them must have to agree on
the period; but it is theoretically possible that when the President writes a
note to the Congress, because it would be at the instance of the President
that the extension would have to be granted by Congress, it is possible that
the
period for the extension may be there. It is also possible that it may not be
there. That is the reason why we want to make it clear that there must be a
reasonable period for the extension. So, if my suggestion is not acceptable to
the Committee, may I request that a voting be held on it, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, may I just propose something because I see
the problem. Suppose we were to say: or extend the same FOR A PERIOD TO
BE
DETERMINED BY CONGRESS that gives Congress a little flexibility on just
how long the extension should be.
MR. REGALADO. Is the Gentleman placing his amendment after same and
before if?
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. SUAREZ. Maybe that can be added after the final word it so that the
clause would read: if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it, FOR A PERIOD AS MAY BE DETER- MINED BY CONGRESS.
FR. BERNAS. It is a question of style, Madam President. It seems to be very
far from the verb.
THE PRESIDENT. Is that accepted by Commissioner Suarez?
MR. SUAREZ. Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE. May I just pose a question to the Committee in connection with
the Suarez amendment? Earlier, Commissioner Regalado said that that point
was
going to be a collective judgment between the President and the Congress.
Are we departing from that now in favor of giving Congress the
plenipotentiary
power to determine the period?
FR. BERNAS. Not really, Madam President, because Congress would be doing
this in consultation with the President, and the President would be outvoted
by
about 300 Members.
MR. OPLE. Yes, but still the idea is to preserve the principle of collective
judgment of that point upon the expiration of the 60 days when, upon his
own
initiative, the President seeks for an extension of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, the participation of the President is there but by giving the
final decision to Congress, we are also preserving the idea that the
President may not revoke what Congress has decided upon.
MR. OPLE. The reason for my concern, Madam President, is that when we put
all of these encumbrances on the President and Commander-in-Chief during
an
actual invasion and rebellion, given an intractable Congress that may be
dominated by opposition parties, we may be actually impelling the President
to use
the sword of Alexander to cut the Gordian knot by just declaring a
revolutionary government that sets him free to deal with the invasion or the
insurrection. That is the reason I am in favor of the present formulation.
However, if Commissioner Suarez insists on his amendment, I do not think I
will
stand in the way.
MR. SUAREZ. We will accept the committee suggestion, subject to style later
on.
THE PRESIDENT. May we ask the proponent to read his amendment so that
the Members can clarify.
FR. BERNAS. On line 7: extend the same FOR A PERIOD TO BE DETERMINED
BY CONGRESS if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires
it.
MR. RODRIGO. Before we vote, may I ask a question just for the record?
Suppose all the 24 senators unanimously say, No, we do not want any
extension, may
they act separately as a Senate to vote against the extension?
FR. BERNAS. Our answer would be no. For clarity we might even say: TO
BE DETERMINED BY CONGRESS VOTING JOINTLY.
MR. RODRIGO. I want that on record because I want to emphasize my stand
that while he have reinstituted a bicameral legislature, we are violating the
very
essence of bicameralism in this provision.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President
MR. MAAMBONG. Just one inquiry. I do not want to engage in nitpicking, but
when we say FOR A PERIOD TO BE DETERMINED BY CONGRESS, can
Congress do it by
law or by resolution, because there are certain acts to be done by Congress
which may be done by resolution and some done by law?
FR. BERNAS. By resolution, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you very much.
FR. BERNAS. If it is done by law, it would need a cumbersome process of
three Readings plus the approval of the President.
MR. PADILLA. According to Commissioner Concepcion, our former Chief
Justice, the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ
of habeas corpus is essentially an executive act. If that be so, and especially
under the following clause: if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it, I do not see why the period must be determined by
the Congress. We are turning a purely executive act to a legislative act.
FR. BERNAS. I would believe what the former Chief Justice said about the
initiation being essentially an executive act, but what follows after the
initiation is something that is participated in by Congress.
MR. CONCEPCION. If I may add a word. The one who will do the fighting is the
executive but, of course, it is expected that if the Congress wants to extend,
it will extend for the duration of the fighting. If the fighting goes on, I do not
think it is fair to assume that the Congress will refuse to extend the
period, especially since in this matter the Congress must act at the instance
of the executive. He is the one who is supposed to know how long it will take
him to fight. Congress may reduce it, but that is without prejudice to his
asking for another extension, if necessary.
MR. ROMULO. I think we are ready to vote, Madam President
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair resolves to call this particular matter to a vote
after lunch because of important repercussions on other matters that may be
related to it.
The session is suspended until two oclock this afternoon.
It was 12:12 p.m.
May we request our guests to please observe silence during our
deliberations.
We wish to welcome this afternoon our visitors who include students from
the Philippine Science High School, the Philippine Womens University, the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, the delegation from the Cordillera
Region and Muslims from Mindanao.
May we call the Chairman of the Committee on the Executive and the
members to please occupy the front table so that we can continue
deliberating on the
proposed amendments to the Article on the Executive.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be
recognized for an amendment to Section 15.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President, I propose to delete lines 21, 22, and 23 of
Section 15 and in lieu thereof insert the following: DURING THE SUSPENSION
OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN
ARRESTED OR DETAINED SHALL BE JUDICIOUSLY CHARGED WITHIN FIVE
WORKING DAYS, OTHERWISE HE
SHALL BE RELEASED. If I may explain a little, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla has five minutes to explain his
amendment.
MR. PADILLA. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent a situation similar
to the past regime when innocent persons were arrested, detained and
confined
in prison sometimes for one month, one year, or even more, without any
criminal charge filed against them who oftentimes did not even understand
why they
had been arrested or detained.
The last paragraph of Section 15 reads:
connected
with invasion.
If a person has been judicially charged, that means there has been a warrant
of arrest issued by the courts. This paragraph will not protect innocent
persons who have been arrested and detained by the military under orders
of the past regime, such as the ASSO, PCO or PDA. What we are trying to
protect is
the right of the persons arrested and detained by requiring that at least
within five working days a criminal charge be filed against them, otherwise, if
there is no crime committed or no evidence in support of the culpability of
such detained person, he should be immediately released after five working
days.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Sarmiento has registered for
an amendment to the amendment.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, when we adjourned this morning, there
was a pending amendment of Commissioner Suarez which we should dispose
of now. It was
on the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 15, which reads: The
Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members voting jointly

in regular or special session, may invoke such proclamation or suspension,
which revocation shall not be set aside by the President, or, upon the
initiative of the President, extend the same FOR A PERIOD TO BE
DETERMINED BY CONGRESS if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety
requires it. That was the pending amendment this morning, Madam
President the insertion of the phrase FOR A PERIOD TO BE DETERMINED
BY CONGRESS. I
think we can dispose of this so we can consider the last paragraph of Section
15, subject of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President, I stated this noon that I object to the
proposal that the period be determined by the Congress, because
admittedly, this
right is a prerogative of the Executive and it should not be determined by the
legislative.
THE PRESIDENT. We will take note of the objection of Commissioner Padilla.
How about Commissioner Suarez?
MR. SUAREZ. I am leaving it up to the Committee whether or not to accept
the amendment, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, the Committee would prefer to submit the
proposed amendment to the floor.
THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready now to vote on this particular amendment
which we had on the floor before we called a suspension of the session for
lunch?
FR. BERNAS. Before we vote, just one clarification. When we say FOR A
PERIOD TO BE DETERMINED BY CONGRESS, we mean Congress voting
jointly or by both
Houses voting jointly.
MR. SUAREZ. To be consistent, I will agree with the suggestion of
Commissioner Bernas, Madam President. So it would be FOR A PERIOD TO BE
DETER- MINED BY
CONGRESS VOTING JOINTLY.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment clear to the Commissioners?
Those in favor of this particular amendment of Commissioner Suarez which
has been accepted by the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several
Members
raised their hand.)
Those who abstain, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I would like to record my vote of abstention
because of a basic objection and that is, that Congress would be voting
jointly,
instead of the Senate and the House voting separately.
THE PRESIDENT. The results show 25 votes in favor, 4 votes against, and I
abstention; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Padillas amendment is now
on the floor.
MR. SUMULONG. Commissioner Concepcion will respond to the proposed
amendment.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioners Sarmiento and Davide also have amendments
to the amendment of Commissioner Padilla. I believe that Commissioner de
Castro wants
to say something before we begin.
THE PRESIDENT. May we hear Commissioner Concepcion first?
MR. CONCEPCION. Before I express my views on the remarks by
Commissioner Padilla, I wish to make it clear that the purpose of this
paragraph is to require
all those detained to be immediately turned over to the judicial authorities.
Therefore, the suspension of the privilege will not apply to them until they
are placed in the custody of a judicial officer, the reason being that the first
important thing to consider is to preserve the life of the detained
person.
Even if the privilege were suspended, if the person has not been turned over
to the court, the government cannot claim that the privilege of the writ has
been suspended. I have no objection insofar as the period proposed by
Commissioner Padilla. As a matter of fact, I would prefer that the detainee be
turned
over to the court as soon as possible. The first important thing is to preserve
his right and his life, the second is to avoid torture or other forms of
oppression; and, of course, to place the detainee under the authority of the
court so that we may never again have a situation where a court would issue
the order of release, but some other party may refuse to release the
detained person. So the effectivity of the suspension of the privilege of the
writ
with respect to persons covered by the provision will take effect only after
the person has been turned over to the court. Of course, it may take some
time
to file the charges, but the period of five days to start with, I suppose, is
sufficient.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President, I agree with the statement of Commissioner
Concepcion. As a matter of fact, those are the same sentiments that have
induced
me to submit this amendment by substitution because in my opinion, it will
make clearer the intendment of the provision.
THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Padilla insist on his proposed
amendment?
MR. PADILLA. Yes, Madam President, because in my opinion the proposed
amendment is clearer and more emphatic because when it says that the
suspension shall
apply only to persons judicially charged, it does not embody the sentiment
that any person arrested during the suspension of the writ should be charged
judicially within a few working hours, or as suggested by many, within five
working days. Precisely, the intendment is that any person arrested should
be
judicially charged, and a person who has been judicially charged is arrested
upon the issuance by the court of a warrant of arrest. So I submit, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Padilla restate his amendment?
MR. PADILLA. In lieu of lines 21 to 23, the last paragraph of Section 15, I
propose the following: DURING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR DETAINED
SHALL BE JUDICIALLY CHARGED WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS, OTHERWISE,

HE SHALL BE RELEASED.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, may I speak in favor of the proposed
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair is sorry, but we have an arrangement with the
Floor Leader that the Chair will recognize first those who have duly
registered. So,
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President. Commissioner Sarmiento is willing to yield
part of his time to Commissioner de Castro.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, yesterday I informed the Floor Leader
about my proposed amendment on the last paragraph of Section 15. My first
impression
was to delete the whole lines 21, 22 and 23, but after talking with the
honorable Chief Justice, both of us expressed our concern on judicially
charging
those arrested under the writ. so I gave way to the amendment of
Commissioner Padilla. My reason in doing so is that there are only two
instances by which
the writ may be issued, and that is during actual rebellion and actual
invasion. We shall not talk of actual invasion because I really doubt the
practicality of issuing a writ when there is actual invasion of our country.
Instead, we will talk of actual rebellion in a certain area where the writ
will have to be issued. I even doubt whether the detainee could be released
within five working days considering that there is a fighting going on in that
area, or a theater of war, as described by the Honorable Bernas. In the actual
theater of war, I really doubt whether the authorities will have sufficient
time to get the necessary affidavits, prepare the necessary complaint and
submit the necessary charge before the court. I even doubt whether there
will be
a court existing in the actual theater of war or in the place where there is
actual rebellion. Nevertheless, let me say that I finally would like to agree
or to convince myself to agree that the five-day period in the actual
operation, actual shooting, actual theater of war, when the authorities may
be able
to prepare the necessary charge, the necessary affidavits, the necessary
evidence so that the court may accept the complaint, will be sufficient.

MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO. I wish to propose an amendment to the amendment of the
honorable Vice-President. He is for the charging of the accused within five
days. My
submission, Madam President, is that five days is too long. Our experience
during martial law was that torture and other human rights violations
happened
immediately after the arrest, on the way to the safe houses or to Camp
Aguinaldo, Fort Bonifacio or Camp Crame. I repeat, five days is too long,
Madam
President. As a matter of fact, under the Revised Penal Code, and, of course,
the honorable Vice-President is an expert on criminal law, we have the 6-918
formula 6 hours, 9 hours, 18 hours within which to charge and bring the
accused to judicial authorities. Of course, during martial law, the 6-9-18
formula was increased under P.D. No. 1404. So I wish to suggest that we
reduce the period of five days to THREE days as a compromise. That would
be 72
hours, Madam President. Actually, it is still quite long.
Will the honorable Vice-President yield to my amendment?
THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Padilla say?
MR. PADILLA. Madam President, I have no particular conviction on the
number of days or number of hours. That was suggested by a few
Commissioners in
conference yesterday. It is true that under Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code which penalizes the delaying of the transmittal or delivery of the
person
arrested to the judicial authorities, the period is based on the gravity of the
offense and this is punishable by the same penalties as those for arbitrary
detention in Article 124 of the Code and the delay in the release under
Article 126. But this provision is made to apply when there is a suspension by
the
President of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. So it covers a different
situation from that contemplated in the Revised Penal Code. The Rules of
Court, Rule 1 13, Section 6 thereof, also allows arrest without warrant under
three situations. However, that is also subject to the period for delivery of
the arrested person to the judicial authorities, which means to the courts
through the fiscal.
With regard to the proposed amendment to our amendment which is to

reduce the period of five working days to THREE working days, I have no
particular
objection, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, after conferring with Commissioner
Concepcion, we have no objection to the amendment if it is an amendment
by addition but not
by substitution, because if it is an amendment by substitution, it weakens
the intent of the provision as it exists. The intention of the provision is
precisely to apply the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus only to those who have been judicially charged.
So if the amendment is by addition, that is, we require that the accused be
charged within a certain period or number of days, we will accept it provided
that what stands here is not deleted. The suspension of the privilege of the
writ will apply only to those who have been judicially charged. Until they
are charged, the suspension does not apply to them.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President, this period that shall apply only to persons
judicially charged is not really very clear to me, because if they are
judicially charged, then it becomes irrelevant because then there would have
been a warrant of arrest issued.
FR. BERNAS. It is not a question of whether or not a warrant of arrest can be
issued. The question is whether in spite of the warrant. they can still be
released. What we are saying here is that to prevent release under a
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the person who is
under
detention must be judicially charged. Until he is judicially charged, he is not
covered by any suspension.
MR. PADILLA. If other persons are not covered by the suspension except
those who are judicially charged, what would be the effect of that to others
not
subject to the suspension?
FR. BERNAS. Precisely, the purpose of the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is to enable the government to deal with a situation of
an invasion or a rebellion and the government must charge judicially those
who are involved in invasion or rebellion. Those who are not charged are not
involved nor considered to be involved in the rebellion or invasion and,
therefore, there is no reason for extending the suspension of the privilege of
the
writ to them.
MR. PADILLA. But if they are not involved in rebellion or invasion. which is a
ground for the suspension of the privilege of the writ or for the
declaration of martial law. then they are innocent. I cannot understand why
the suspension of the writ should apply only to persons judicially charged
when
the very idea is that any person who has been arrested, even under the
suspension of the writ, must be or should be judicially charged.
MR. CONCEPCION. The fact is that many had been detained for years without
having any participation in rebellion or insurrection.
MR. PADILLA. That is correct.
MR. CONCEPCION. Precisely, to avoid that, the suspension of the privilege of
the writ will apply only to those who are turned over to the judicial
authority.
MR. PADILLA. What about the persons who might have been arrested but
have not been turned over judicially?
MR. CONCEPCION. They can apply for a release.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair supposes that is where the proposed amendment
can come in, as suggested by Commissioner Bernas, as a separate sentence,
without
deleting the last paragraph on lines 21 to 23. Would Commissioner Padilla
agree?
MR. PADILLA. I cannot really reconcile the three lines as presently worded.
The last paragraph mentions inherent in or directly connected with
invasion.
If it is a crime inherent in, that should be absorbed in the offense. And while
the grounds are actual rebellion and actual invasion, the last line talks
of connected with invasion. To me it is a little obscure. Whereas, my
proposal would seem to be very clear that whoever is arrested or detained
must be
judicially charged within five or three working days, otherwise he is entitled
to be released even if it is during the period of the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, may I perhaps read a combination of the
Commissioners amendment and the existing last paragraph for purposes of
clarity. We
could put it this way, starting with lines 21, 22 and 23: The suspension of
the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. DURING
THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT ANY PERSON WHO HAS
THUS BEEN
ARRESTED OR DETAINED SHALL BE JUDICIALLY CHARGED WITHIN FIVE DAYS
OTHERWISE HE SHALL BE RELEASED.
THE PRESIDENT. Or THREE days, as recommended by Commissioner
Sarmiento.
MR. SARMIENTO. Within THREE days, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS. For THREE days.
THE PRESIDENT. Is that satisfactory to Commissioner Padilla?
MR. PADILLA. I yield to the better judgment of the Committee, Madam
President. I have already stated my observations and I do not want to repeat
them
anymore.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO. Does the amendment of Commissioner Padilla contemplate
that such a person is not entitled to preliminary investigation, so that he can
be
immediately charged within the 72-hour period or five-day period as the case
may be?
MR. PADILLA. There is no intention to waive any right of a person who has
been arrested or accused. As a matter of fact, even during the suspension of
the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, there should be no arrest unless there
be some probable cause that would justify his arrest or detention. So the
amendment does not contemplate any waiver or abandonment of any right
of a person arrested.
Point of clarification only from the distinguished Vice-President. Is it my
understanding that during the three-day period, and Consistent with the firm
stand and interpretation of the honorable Chief Justice Concepcion, that
particular respondent would not be deprived of the right to sue for a writ of
habeas corpus?
MR. PADILLA. There is no waiver of any right of the person arrested.

MR. SUAREZ. I thank the Commissioner for the clarification.
THE PRESIDENT. Are we now ready to vote on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Padilla, which has been accepted by the Committee, as
reworded?
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, I think we should settle first the primordial
question of whether it should be within five days or within three days as
proposed by Commissioner Sarmiento.
THE PRESIDENT. That has been accepted by Commissioner Padilla; he has no
objection to that. So the amendment is by addition after line 23.
Is there any objection to this particular proposed amendment? (Silence) The
MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ. Madam President, my proposed amendment is on page 7, Section
16, line 26 which is to delete the words and bureaus, and on line 28 of the
same
page, to change the phrase colonel or naval captain to MAJOR GENERAL OR
REAR ADMIRAL.
This last amendment which is coauthored by Commissioner de Castro is to
put a period (.) after the word ADMIRAL, and on line 29 of the same page,
start a
new sentence with: HE SHALL ALSO APPOINT, et cetera.
MR. REGALADO. May we have the amendments one by one.
The first proposed amendment is to delete the words and bureaus on line
26.
MR. FOZ. That is correct.
MR. REGALADO. For the benefit of the other Commissioners, what would be
the justification of the proponent for such a deletion?
MR. FOZ. The position of bureau director is actually quite low in the executive
department, and to require further confirmation of presidential appointment
of heads of bureaus would subject them to political influence.
MR. REGALADO. The Commissioners proposed amendment by deletion also

includes regional directors as distinguished from merely staff directors,
because the
regional directors have quite a plenitude of powers within the regions as
distinguished from staff directors who only stay in the office.
MR. FOZ. Yes, but the regional directors are under the supervision of the staff
bureau directors.
MR. REGALADO. With respect to other officers of the military, may we know
the proposal of Commissioner Foz?
MR. FOZ. On line 28, I propose to delete the phrase colonel or naval
captain and substitute it with MAJOR GENERAL OR REAR ADMIRAL and put a
period (.)
after it.
MR. REGALADO. Again, for the benefit of the Commissioners, what would be
the Commissioners justification for increasing the level of rank which will
require confirmation?
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.
MR. FOZ. I think Commissioner de Castro has something to say on that.
I thank Commissioner Foz for introducing the amendment of changing
colonel or naval captain to MAJOR GENERAL OR REAR ADMIRAL on my
behalf. That saves me
some words to say.
As I said before, the phrase colonel or naval captain was taken from the
1935 Constitution. In 1935, we had only one general and a few colonels in
the
military and they were in the higher echelon, mostly occupying the
supervisory positions. In fact, the only general during that time was General
Jalandoni
who was the Chief of Staff then.
Madam President, we have increased the strength of our armed forces so
now we have the ranks of up to full general. The officer corps constitutes 1.2
percent of the entire strength of the armed forces.
I introduce the change of colonel or naval captain to MAJOR GENERAL OR

REAR ADMIRAL because the brigadier generals constitute the front line units;
they
are the front line generals directly fighting the insurgents while the major
generals are the supervisory officers. I would say that when a brigadier
general is sent to the front, he is selected by the Chief of Staff, concurred in
by the Minister of National Defense and concurred in by the President, so
he must be a real good general for the front lines So I do not believe that he
should be concerned about his rank for confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments.
On the other hand, major generals are usually the service commanders, the
supervising generals on top of the fighting units. They are the ones whose
appointments by the President may be looked into by the Commission on
Appointments because there are those who may be good brigadier generals
but are not
as good for a service command. This, the Commission on Appointments may
look into before confirmation, and this goes also with the rear admiral.
Madam
President, this is the reason we have increased the rank to be submitted to
the Commission on Appointments for confirmation.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, may I address some clarificatory
questions to Commissioner de Castro?
MR. DE CASTRO. Gladly.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado will please proceed.
MR. REGALADO. Under the 1935 Constitution, we. took into account not only
the number of colonels or generals then in the Philippine army, but also the
number of troops under the command of a particular person. Generally,
under the Table of Organization and Equipment and even up to now, a
colonel is a
regimental commander.
MR. DE CASTRO. Not necessarily. In the 1935 Constitution, a division
commander is a colonel, now a division commander is a major general.
MR. REGALADO. So what would be the area of command now of a colonel as
distinguished from that of a brigadier general under the Table of Organization
and
Equipment as it now stands?
MR. DE CASTRO. Under the Table of Allowance, a full colonel can now
command a battalion or a unit a little higher than the battalion, maybe a
reinforced
battalion. In fact, we hear of colonels commanding infantry battalions with
only a strength of about 700 men for each battalion. When I talk of reinforced
battalion it has a strength of about 1.900 men. Formerly, a colonel like
colonel Capinpin was commanding a division almost the whole division that
the
military had at that time.
MR. REGALADO. In other words, the increased rank involved in the proposed
amendment, which will require confirmation, is based, among others, on the
number
of colonels and general rank officers that we now have in the Philippine Army
and the Armed Forces.
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes. because the ratio of ranks is determined by the
National Defense Act. and when we talk of general officers, they constitute
only 1.2
percent of the total strength of the officer corps.
MR. REGALADO. That includes brigadier generals up to full general.
MR. DE CASTRO. That includes brigadier generals up to full general, the rank
of General Ramos now.
MR. REGALADO. And what would be the ratio now with respect to full colonels
in relation to the total strength that we have of about 250,000?
MR. DE CASTRO. I do not have the correct ratio but I can consult the National
Defense Act: it is all there. I do not believe that the Armed Forces now is
overstrong in the rank. Perhaps, this may go to about 2.5 percent. I am not
very sure but I will consult the National Defense Act.
MR. REGALADO. I sought this clarification because of the observations
yesterday of Commissioner Rama, who happens not to be here. where he
was for
maintaining the 1935 provisions for reasons that he explained.
MR. DE CASTRO. For the reason that normally a coup d etat is started by
officers with the rank of colonel. We have not had a coup d etat yet ever
since
the Armed Forces was organized in 1935. And I think the colonels are better
tamed than the major generals and the captains when it comes to coup d
etat.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.

MR. MAAMBONG. May I ask Commissioner de Castro a point of clarification.
When he suggested the change of the word colonel to MAJOR GENERAL,
what he is
actually saying is that those who have lower ranks than major general are
still appointed by the President but not with the consent of the Commission
on
Appointments?
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG. In other words, the Commissioner does not take away the
power of the President to appoint officers. It is only the matter of
confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments.
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes, Madam President. As I stated yesterday, the
appointment of a cadet in the Philippine Military Academy is by the
President.
MR. MAAMBONG. Precisely, because I recall that my appointment as a
reserve of the Armed Forces was signed by the President.
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG. May I direct a question to Commissioner Foz? The
Commissioner proposed an amendment to delete and bureaus on Section
16. Who will then
appoint the bureau directors if it is not the President?
MR. FOZ. It is still the President who will appoint them but their appointments
shall no longer be subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
MR. MAAMBONG. In other words, it is in line with the same answer of
Commissioner de Castro?
MR. FOZ. Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. Is this clear now? What is the reaction of the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. Before we accept the amendment, Madam President, may I
get a clarification from Commissioner de Castro?
THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner will please proceed.

MR. REGALADO. Why does the Commissioner have to make a distinction
between a brigadier general and a major general? Would it not be all right if
all
officers of general rank should be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments?
MR. DE CASTRO. There is a very big distinction. A brigadier general has one
star and a major general has two, which is a lot of difference. A brigadier
general is a front line general now commanding reinforced battalions or a
region, while a major general is the supervisor of that brigadier general. He is
a service commander, such as the commanding general of the army, the
commanding general of the air force, the commanding general of the
Philippine
Constabulary and the rear admiral of the navy.
MR. REGALADO. Does Commissioner de Castro not think, therefore, that
since a brigadier general is a front line commander, his personal capabilities
in the
exercise of his command functions should be taken into account, so much so
that in the 1973 Constitution, all officers of general rank had to be
specifically appointed by the President?
MR. DE CASTRO. Not in the 1973 Constitution. We have no Commission on
Appointments in the 1973 Constitution.
MR. REGALADO. No, I mean, in the 1935 Constitution, a division commander
was a colonel. Regarding this matter of the brigadier general being the front
line
commander of troops, does the Commissioner not think that the Commission
on Appointments now should be given an opportunity to go over his
qualifications,
especially since he is leading so many troops out in the field and subjecting
them to exposure to enemy fire?
MR. DE CASTRO. As I said earlier, before a brigadier general is given the front
line troops to command during insurgency, he must first be chosen by the
Chief of Staff, then concurred in by the Minister of National Defense and
finally by the President. As such, it will be very, very difficult to see a
brigadier general begging the confirmation of his appointment by the
Commission on Appointments when he is there in the battleground fighting
for us and
who was already chosen by the Chief of Staff and concurred in by the
Minister of National Defense and by the President. So we are just submitting
the
supervisory generals, like the major generals of the army, the PC, the navy
and the air force, to the Commission on Appointments.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, the Committee feels that this matter
should be submitted to the body for a vote.
MR. REGALADO. We will take the amendments one by one. We will first vote
on the deletion of the phrase and bureaus on line 26, such that
appointments of
bureau directors no longer need confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. Section 16, therefore, would read: The President shall
nominate, and with
the consent of a Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the heads of
the executive departments, ambassadors . . .
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to delete the phrase and bureaus on
page 7, line 26? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
May the Chair have the next amendment on line 28.
MR. UKA. Madam President, I was a little late, but then may I inform this
Constitutional Commission of the presence of our brothers and sisters from
the
Cordillera Region and from the southern part of the Philippines. We will notice
that this is the biggest crowd since we started over a month ago.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have acknowledged their presence already.
(Applause)
MR. UKA. I did not ask for that applause; it so happened that I noticed their
presence in this hall which only shows their interest in our drafting of the
Constitution. Some of them whispered to me that they are very much
interested in regional autonomy, which we have not yet discussed.
(Applause)
THE PRESIDENT. For the information of Commissioner Uka, we have
acknowledged their presence already in the course of our session this
afternoon.
MR. ROMULO. May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized for an
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. We will vote first on the amendment on line 28. May we
know what the amendment is?
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, on line 28, substitute the phrase colonel
or naval captain with MAJOR GENERAL OR REAR ADMIRAL.
MR. DAVIDE. I wonder if the proponent would agree to an amendment to his
amendment on line 28. We seek to achieve a happy compromise, so instead
of MAJOR
GENERAL it be BRIGADIER GENERAL and COMMODORE instead of REAR
ADMIRAL.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, the Commissioner is seeking a happy
compromise by introducing an amendment to my proposal.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, is that acceptable to Commissioner de Castro?
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, I would like to give a little background
information on this matter. I have talked with General Ramos and Deputy
Minister
of Defense Ileto regarding the inclusion of the brigadier general and the
commodore, and they were quite insistent in convincing me to start from the
rank
of major general and rear admiral. If my proposal to include the major
general and the rear admiral will lose on the floor, which I doubt, I will be
willing to go to the happy medium.
I thank Commissioner Davide, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE. May I request then for a vote on my proposed amendment, but
before doing so, may I be allowed to explain?
THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE. It was stated by Commissioner de Castro that the brigadier
generals and the rear admirals are the field commanders. Necessarily then,
the
security of the State is in issue. We should, therefore, allow the Commission
on Appointments to review any proposal for appointment to these highly
sensitive positions, otherwise, these field commanders will believe that they
are immune from the review of the legislative. So sensitive a position then
would necessitate, necessarily, a confirmation of any appointment of these
officials.
MR. DE CASTRO. As I said before, and allow me to repeat it just once more,
this brigadier general who goes to the front has passed three screenings-the
screening of the Chief of Staff, the screening of the Minister of National
Defense and the screening of the President. We have had very bad
experiences
regarding confirmation of the appointments of these officials by the
Commission on Appointments. We do not like our fighting generals who are
in the front
to be begging the confirmation of their appointments by the Commission on
Appointments. Our experience with the Commission on Appointments was
very bad
that we even refuse to think about what it had done to us. As I said, we do
not like our fighting generals in the front to beg the Commission on
Appointments, who might not only disagree with their appointments but
even hide their papers inside the drawer of the table.
That is our sad experience with the Commission on Appointments which we
cannot forget.
MR. DAVIDE. May I just reply, Madam President. If they already underwent
three screenings, with more reason then that the representatives of the
people
represented by the Commission on Appointments should be allowed to make
the final screening for people in sensitive positions which might involve
violations of human rights and the security and stability of the State.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, the President of the Philippines is a
representative of the people who screens the front line generals.
MR. ABUBAKAR. Madam President, may I take the floor just for the
clarification of the Commissioners. I want to raise a vital and informative
question.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Abubakar wants to be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR. Madam President, we have been debating for so long on the
inclusion of rear admiral, major general and colonel. I would like to point out
that in the naval echelon of the Philippine Navy, there is only one rear
admiral. Why do we not simplify this because this problem will not arise as
frequently as we give the impression in our debate? Since the Commissioner
is more acquainted with the organization of the army, may we know how
many major
generals we have?
MR. DE CASTRO. As of now, we have six major generals and one rear
admiral. who are as follows: Major General Magno, commander of the
Southern Command;
Major General Mison, Vice-Chief of Staff; Major General Caeso of the army;
Major General Farolan of the air force; the major general in the Philippine
Constabulary; Major General Ermita; and the rear admiral of the navy who is
the flag officer in command.
MR. ABUBAKAR. So we have six major generals and one rear admiral. They,
as well as the higher echelon of the navy, the army and the air force, should
not
pose a big problem to the appointing power. As I understand it, their
succession is even automatic. As soon as a major general in command of a
particular
branch of the Armed Forces has retired, the next senior officer succeeds him.
So the matter of submitting their appointments for confirmation would not be
difficult. We can solve this by adhering as simply as we had done in the
previous Constitution and legislation that their appointments be confirmed
only by
the Commission. On that note, therefore. instead of exhausting our resources
because we are not warlike people but peace-loving people, we should direct
to
and concentrate ourselves on, the development of a prosperous and happy
Philippines, not a militaristic Philippines. I am sure this problem regarding the
rank of military officials will not arise as frequently as we are fearful that it
might. On those bases then, we can dispose of this matter by the simple
provision as it now appears in the proposed draft of the Constitution. Since
Commissioner de Castro is a general, I respect his ability and his experience.
We will listen to his counsel and we would like him to tell us how this matter
could be resolved. On that note, I give him my approval in advance.
MR. DE CASTRO. I thank the Commissioner. I hope the Committee will also
follow the Commissioners advice.
MR. GARCIA. Madam President, may I argue briefly against the amendment
proposed by Commissioner de Castro?
MR. DE CASTRO. We submit it to a vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA. Thank you very much, Madam President.
I would like to argue briefly against the amendment proposed by
Commissioner de Castro.
I believe the Commission on Appointments, in the matter of confirming the

appointments of military officers with the rank of colonel and naval captain,
is
important for two reasons: First, I think it is a reaffirmation of the importance
of the principle of civilian supremacy; and second, because of the fact
that military officers must also manifest public accountability. I think our very
sad experience during martial law proves this in that very often the
appointing power can exact personal loyalty. And I think the composition of
the Commission on Appointments where we have representatives of the
people will
make sure that military officers will be elected, nominated and appointed on
the basis of these two principles. I think this is very important.
I would like, therefore, to take a firm stand against the amendment of
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I think we are now ready to vote since we
have discussed this enough.
THE PRESIDENT. May we know how line 28 will now read?
MR. DE CASTRO. Line 28 would now read: from the rank of MAJOR GENERAL
OR REAR ADMIRAL.
MR. DAVIDE. There was a proposed amendment to the amendment of
Commissioner de Castro but it was rejected by the proponent. I would 11ke
to submit it to a
vote.
THE PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment to the amendment was to include
BRIGADIER GENERAL.
MR. DAVIDE. My amendment is to change MAJOR GENERAL to BRIGADIER
GENERAL and REAR ADMIRAL to COMMODORE.
MR. DE CASTRO. May I request the patience and indulgence of the Honorable
Davide because if I lose my amendments I am going to return to his. So
please, I
request the indulgence of the Commissioner.
MR. DAVIDE. I do not want Commissioner de Castro see a defeat on the floor.
I would rather request him to agree to the proposal so that both of us will be
victorious.
MR. DE CASTRO. I will go on with my proposal as of now.
Madam President, may I ask for a suspension of the session.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.
It was 4:11 p.m.
MR. DAVIDE. Since Commissioner de Castro wants his proposal acted upon by
the Commission, I am with drawing my proposed amendment to his
amendment and
would stick to the original provision of the Article as proposed by the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT. What is the reaction of the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee, Madam President, prefers to have the
proposed amendment of Commissioner de Castro submitted to the floor for
the consideration
of all the Commissioners. However, the sentiment of the Committee is that it
will stick to the original provision on line 28 regarding the inclusion of the
colonel and the naval captain.
THE PRESIDENT. So the Committee does not accept the proposed
amendment of Commissioner de Castro so that line 28 of the committee
report remains as is.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, with due respect to the amendment of
Commissioner Davide to my amendment on line 28, I am relenting the
change of colonel
to BRIGADIER GENFRAL and naval captain to COMMODORE. We will submit it

to the floor if the Committee will not accept it. Line 28 would now read:
armed
forces from the rank of BRIGADIER GENERAL or COMMODORE.
MR. REGALADO. The Committee, Madam President, does not accept the
amendment. It is its sentiment that it will stick to the original provision of the
proposed Article and, therefore, we request that the proposed amendment
be submitted to the floor.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro has explained already his reasons
and, therefore, we are now ready to vote.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment on page 7, line 28 to change
colonel to BRIGADIER GENERAL and naval captain to COMMODORE,
please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 12 votes in favor and 22 against; the proposed amendment
of Commissioner de Castro is lost.
MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized.
MR. FOZ. Madam President, this is the third proposed amendment on page 7,
line 28. I propose to put a period (.) after captain and on line 29, delete
and all and substitute it with HE SHALL ALSO APPOINT ANY.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, the Committee accepts the proposed
amendment because it makes it clear that those other officers mentioned
therein do not
have to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

MR. DAVIDE. I just would like to get a clearer intention. With the acceptance
of that proposed amendment, would Congress be prohibited from creating an
office and vesting the authority of appointing the officials therein on the
President, with the requirement that such appointments should bear the
conformity or consent of the Commission on Appointments? Under the
proposal, it would seem that all other such officials may be appointed
without the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, prohibiting, therefore, the
legislature to so create an office for which the requirement for consent of the
Commission on Appointments for positions therein is stated in the law itself.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, the constitutional list of officers whose
appointments need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments is
not
exclusive. If the Congress is so minded, it may require other officers also to
be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
MR. DAVIDE. So would the proponent accept an amendment to his
amendment, so that after captain we insert the following words: AND
OTHER OFFICERS WHOSE
APPOINTMENTS ARE VESTED IN HIM IN THIS CONSTITUTION?
FR. BERNAS. It is a little vague.
MR. DAVIDE. In other words, there are positions provided for in the
Constitution whose appointments are vested in the President, as a matter of
fact like
those of the different constitutional commissions.
FR. BERNAS. That is correct. This list of officials found in Section 16 is not an
exclusive list of those appointments which constitutionally require
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
MR. DAVIDE. That is the reason I seek the incorporation of the words I
proposed.
FR. BERNAS. Will Commissioner Davide restate his proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE. After captain, add the following: AND OTHER OFFICERS
WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE VESTED IN HIM IN THIS CONSTITUTION.
FR. BERNAS. How about: AND OTHER OFFICERS WHOSE APPOINTMENTS
REQUIRE CONFIRMATION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION?
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Madam President, that is modified by the Committee.

FR. BERNAS. That will clarify things.
THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept?
MR. REGALADO. Just for the record, of course, that excludes those officers
which the Constitution does not require confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments, like the members of the judiciary and the Ombudsman.
MR. DAVIDE. That is correct. That is very clear from the modification made by
Commissioner Bernas.
THE PRESIDENT. So we have now this proposed amendment of
Commissioners Foz and Davide.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President. before we vote, may I be clarified. As
worded now, other officers, aside from those enumerated here, may also be
appointed by
the President with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, if it
is so provided in this Constitution. I remember Commissioner Bernas say that
officers may also need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments
if so provided by law, so that the approval of that amendment which says
UNDER
THIS CONSTITUTION does not exclude the power of the legislature to enact
a law providing that these officials shall need the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments.
FR. BERNAS. It does not.
Commissioners Foz and Davide as accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
none; the amendment. as amended, is approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, I think the Committee members have failed
to provide for recess appointments.
FR. BERNAS. That is correct.
MS. AQUINO. Are we allowing the President to make appointments while the
Congress is in recess? If so, I would suggest that we take up Article VII
Section
10 of the 1935 Constitution, which directly pertains to this situation.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, we quite recognize that, but we have to think
this out a little bit more because Article VII, Section 10 (4) of the 1935
Constitution provides:
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess
of the Congress, but such appointments shall be effective only until
disapproval
by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Congress.
This provision, however, was written under the circumstances of the 1935
Constitution when the session days were only 100 days. Today, we only have
a
30-day compulsory recess which, however, does not exclude a longer
voluntary recess. So the question is: Can the President make appointments
while Congress
is in recess, either involuntary or compulsory?
THE PRESIDENT. May we let Commissioner Bernas, finish first with his
comments.
FR. BERNAS. I am just thinking aloud, Madam President, whether a provision
similar to that of the 1935 Constitution is necessary, or if we must adjust the
provision of the 1935 Constitution to the circumstances of the present
Constitution which has a very brief recess.
MR. DE CASTRO. I believe the provision in the 1935 Constitution refers to ad
interim appointments.
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO. So that when appointments of the officials by the President
which need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments are made
when the
Congress is in recess these are ad interim appointments the President
may then submit such appointments to Congress when it begins to be in

session.
This is just for the information of the body, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, we quite understand that, but as we say, our compulsory
recess now is only 30 days. So under such circumstances, is it necessary to
provide for ad interim appointments? Perhaps there should be a little
discussion on that.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President.
MS. AQUINO. My concern is that unless this problem is addressed, this might
present problems in terms of anticipating interruption of government
business,
considering that we are not certain of the length of involuntary recess or
adjournment of the Congress. We are certain, however, of the involuntary
adjournment of the Congress which is 30 days, but we cannot leave to
conjecture the matter of involuntary recess.
FR. BERNAS. That is correct, but we are trying to look for a formula. I wonder
if the Commissioner has a formula which we will discuss later but not at the
moment. Perhaps we can move on to something else.
MR. ROMULO. Would the Committee like to defer that question?
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. We will defer this particular question.
Is there any other Commissioner who desires to propose an amendment?
MR. DAVIDE. On Section 16, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, may I propose an amendment on line
16.
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, on page 8, line 3, insert a comma (,) after
departments and add the following. . .
MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. There is an anterior amendment by Commissioner de los

Reyes.
MR. DE LOS REYES. On page 8, line 2, change courts to MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY, because the line mentions President, who is a person and
heads of
departments, who are also persons. Therefore, it should be MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY.
THE PRESIDENT. It should be in the JUDICIARY, as a body.
MR. ROMULO. Yes, in the JUDICIARY, not in the MEMBERS.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Lines 1 to 3 read: law vests the appointment of inferior
officers in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments, so to have symmetry, it should be in the MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY.
THE PRESIDENT. So does the Commissioner mean that every judge will be
entitled to appoint his personnel? Am I correct?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, because the line states courts. It does not say
which court.
THE PRESIDENT. Shall we seek the advice of Commissioner Concepcion?
MR. ROMULO. He is not in at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say in changing courts to
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY?
MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN. Anterior amendment on page 8, line 1, Madam President,
which I indicated during the period of interpellations regarding the use of the
word
inferior. I understand from the Commissioners that we can delete inferior
without sacrificing its meaning.
MR. REGALADO. So line I would now read: of OTHER officers LOWER IN
RANK.
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection to change inferior to OTHER officers LOWER IN
RANK? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
Let us go back to the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Does the Committee accept my proposed amendment?
MR. REGALADO. The amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes is to change
courts to MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY.
FR. BERNAS. It is a little vague if we just say in the MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY because we have collegiate and noncollegiate bodies. So for
instance, if
we take the case of the Supreme Court when we say MEMBERS; OF THE
JUDICIARY, which of the members of the Supreme Court would have the
appointing
authority?
MR. DE LOS REYES. But the point is that the first sentence refers to the
President alone; it does not say executive. And the last portion refers to
the
heads of departments because these are persons who appoint, but the
middle portion refers to courts which do not appoint. How can the courts
appoint?
FR. BERNAS. How about in the HEADS OF courts?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Concepcion is here now, may we seek his
opinion on this matter? May we ask Commissioner Regalado to kindly inform
Commissioner
Concepcion of the issue.
Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION. I suppose that insofar as collegiate courts are concerned,
certain rules will be adopted by the Supreme Court. Under the present setup,
court employees are actually appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court. I suppose in this case, when we speak of courts, it refers to the judges
presiding in courts. After all, the presiding judge acts in behalf of the court.
These are court employees, and whoever presides performs the
administrative functions corresponding to his particular station. Insofar as
clerks of courts are concerned, generally, they are appointed by the Supreme
Court in agreement with collegiate courts through the passage of a

resolution that is deemed to be an appointment by the court concerned. So I
think we can
retain the word courts since it has been used for so long in the past, and it
has an established connotation.
MR. DE LOS REYES. I submit if that is the explanation, although I find the
wordings inconsistent. It refers to the President and heads of departments as
officers, but it does not say or in the Executive Department. The middle
portion refers to courts, and I do not think the courts can appoint. But if the
Committee wants to retain this in this particular Article, I submit.
Is Commissioner de los Reyes insisting on his amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES. I am not insisting, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE. On page 8, line 3, change the period (.) after departments to
a comma (,) and add AGENCIES, COMMISSIONS, OR BOARDS. This is just to
complete
the enumeration in the 1935 Constitution from which this additional clause
was taken.
MR. SARMIENTO. Just a point of clarification, Madam President. I think this
was taken from the 1973 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution speaks only of
heads of departments.
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, it is the 1973 Constitution rather.
THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee need time to consider?
MR. SUMULONG. We accept the amendment.
MR. ROMULO. The Committee has accepted the amendment, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the addition of the words
AGENCIES, COMMISSIONS, OR BOARDS on line 3, page 8? (Silence) The
Chair hears none;

the amendment is approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized for an amendment on Section 16 with regard to ad interim
appointments.
MR. BENGZON. Madam President, apropos of the matter raised by
Commissioner Aquino and after conferring with the Committee,
Commissioner Aquino and I
propose the following amendment as the last paragraph of Section 16, the
wordings of which are in the 1935 Constitution: THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE
THE POWER
TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS DURING THE RECESS OF CONGRESS WHETHER IT
BE VOLUNTARY OR COMPULSORY BUT SUCH APPOINTMENTS SHALL BE
EFFECTIVE ONLY UNTIL DISAPPROVAL BY
THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS OR UNTIL THE NEXT ADJOURNMENT OF
THE CONGRESS.
This is otherwise called the ad interim appointments.
MR. RODRIGO. Before we vote, Madam President, may I propound just one or
two questions?
MR. RODRIGO. The amendment refers to appointments which require
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
MR. BENGZON. Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO. It does not refer to appointments which do not need-such
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments because it is understood
that the
President can appoint anytime.
MR. BENGZON. That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of

Commissioners Aquino and Bengzon, adding a paragraph to the last
paragraph of Section
16? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. ROMULO. I believe there are no more amendments on Section 16. We are
now on Section 17. I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR. Madam President, on Section 17, page 8, line 7, after the word
conviction, delete the period (.) and add BY FINAL JUDGMENT, so that line 7
will now read: fines and forfeitures, after conviction BY FINAL JUDGMENT.
MR. SUMULONG. The Committee accepts.
MR. JAMIR. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Jamir which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears
MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Tan be recognized to introduce an
amendment on the same section.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized
SR. TAN. Madam President, lines 7 to 9 state:
I suggest that this be deleted on the grounds that, first, violations of corrupt
practices may include a very little offense like stealing P10; second,
which I think is more important, I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that
subconsciously we are drafting a constitution on the premise that all our
future Presidents will be bad and dishonest and, consequently, their acts will
be lacking in wisdom. Therefore, this Article seems to contribute towards
the creation of an anti-President Constitution or a President with vast
responsibilities but no corresponding power except to declare martial law.
Therefore, I request that these lines be deleted.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, may the Committee react to that?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, please.
MR. REGALADO. This was inserted here on the resolution of Commissioner

Davide because of the fact that similar to the provisions on the Commission
on
Elections, the recommendation of that Commission is required before
executive clemency is granted because violations of the election laws go into
the very
political life of the country.
With respect to violations of our Corrupt Practices Law, we felt that it is also
necessary to have that subjected to the same condition because violation
of our Corrupt Practices Law may be of such magnitude as to affect the very
economic system of the country. Nevertheless, as a compromise, we
provided here
that it will be the Congress that will provide for the classification as to which
convictions will still require prior recommendation; after all, the
Congress could take into account whether or not the violation of the Corrupt
Practices Law is of such magnitude as to affect the economic life of the
country, if it is in the millions or billions of dollars. But I assume the Congress
in its collective wisdom will exclude those petty crimes of corruption
as not to require any further stricture on the exercise of executive clemency
because, of course, there is a whale of a difference if we consider a lowly
clerk committing malversation of government property or funds involving
one hundred pesos. But then, we also anticipate the possibility that the
corrupt
practice of a public officer is of such magnitude as to have virtually drained a
substantial portion of the treasury, and then he goes through all the
judicial processes and later on, a President who may have close connections
with him or out of improvident compassion may grant clemency under such
conditions. That is why we left it to Congress to provide and make a
classification based on substantial distinctions between a minor act of
corruption or
an act of substantial proportions.
SR. TAN. So. why do we not just insert the word GROSS or GRAVE before the
word violations?
MR. REGALADO. We feel that Congress can make a better distinction because
GRAVE or GROSS can be misconstrued by putting it purely as a policy.
MR. RODRIGO. May I speak in favor of the proposed amendment?
MR. RODRIGO. The power to grant executive clemency is essentially an

executive power, and that is precisely why it is called executive clemency. In
this
sentence, which the amendment seeks to delete, an exception is being
made. Congress, which is the legislative arm, is allowed to intrude into this
prerogative of the executive. Then it limits the power of Congress to subtract
from this prerogative of the President to grant executive clemency by
limiting the power of Congress to only corrupt practices laws. There are
many other crimes more serious than these. Under this amendment,
Congress cannot
limit the power of executive clemency in cases of drug addiction and drug
pushing which are very, very serious crimes that can endanger the State;
also,
rape with murder, kidnapping and treason. Aside from the fact that it is a
derogation of the power of the President to grant executive clemency, it is
also
defective in that it singles out just one kind of crime. There are far more
serious crimes which are not included.
MR. REGALADO. I will just make one observation on that. We admit that the
pardoning power is an executive power. But even in the provisions on the
COMELEC,
one will notice that constitutionally, it is required that there be a favorable
recommendation by the Commission on Elections for any violation of election
laws.
At any rate, Commissioner Davide, as the principal proponent of that and as
a member of the Committee, has explained in the committee meetings we
had why
he sought the inclusion of this particular provision. May we call on
Commissioner Davide to state his position.
MR. DAVIDE. I am constrained to rise to object to the proposal. We have just
approved the Article on Accountability of Public Officers. Under it, it is
mandated that a public office is a public trust, and all government officers
are under obligation to observe the utmost of responsibility, integrity,
loyalty and efficiency, to lead modest lives and to act with patriotism and
justice.
In all cases, therefore, which would go into the very core of the concept that
a public office is a public trust, the violation is itself a violation not
only of the economy but the moral fabric of public officials. And that is the
reason we now want that if there is any conviction for the violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which, in effect, is a violation of the
public trust character of the public office, no pardon shall be extended to
the offender, unless some limitations are imposed.
Originally, my limitation was, it should be with the concurrence of the
convicting court, but the Committee left it entirely to the legislature to
formulate the mechanics at trying, probably, to distinguish between grave
and less grave or serious cases of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Perhaps this is now the best time, since we have strengthened
the Article on Accountability of Public Officers, to accompany it with a
mandate that the Presidents right to grant executive clemency for offenders
or violators of laws relating to the concept of a public office may be limited
by Congress itself.
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO. May I briefly speak in favor of the amendment by deletion.
Madam President, over and over again, we have been saying and arguing
before this Constitutional Commission that we are emasculating the powers
of the
presidency, and this provision to me is another clear example of that. So, I
speak against this provision. Even the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions do
not
provide for this kind of provision.
I am supporting the amendment by deletion of Commissioner Tan.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Tingson would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON. Madam President, I am also in favor of the amendment by
deletion because I am in sympathy with the stand of Commissioner Francisco
Soc
Rodrigo. I do believe and we should remember that above all the elected or
appointed officers of our Republic, the leader is the President. I believe that
the country will be as the President is, and if we systematically emasculate
the power of this presidency, the time may come when he will be so
handcuffed
that he will no longer be able to act like he should be acting.
So, Madam President, I am in favor of the deletion of this particular line.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Colayco would like to be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO. Thank you very much, Madam President.
I seldom rise here to object to or to commend or to recommend the approval
of proposals, but now I find that the proposal of Commissioner Tan is worthy
of
approval of this body.
Why are we singling out this particular offense? There are other crimes which
cast a bigger blot on the moral character of the public officials.
Finally, this body should not be the first one to limit the almost absolute
power of our Chief Executive in deciding whether to pardon, to reprieve or to
commute the sentence rendered by the court.
I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote now?
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Padilla would like to be recognized, and after
him will be Commissioner Natividad.
MR. PADILLA. Only one sentence, Madam President. The Sandiganbayan has
been called the Anti-Graft Court, so if this is allowed to stay, it would mean
that
the Presidents power to grant pardon or reprieve will be limited to the cases
decided by the Anti-Graft Court, when as already stated, there are many
provisions in the Revised Penal Code that penalize more serious offenses.
Moreover, when there is a judgment of conviction and the case merits the
consideration of the exercise of executive clemency, usually under Article V
of
the Revised Penal Code the judge will recommend such exercise of clemency.
And so, I am in favor of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Tan for
the
deletion of this last sentence in Section 17.
THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote now, Mr. Floor Leader?
MR. NATIVIDAD. Just one more.

MR. NATIVIDAD. I am also against this provision which will again chip more
powers from the President. In case of other criminals convicted in our
society,
we extend probation to them while in this case, they have already been
convicted and we offer mercy. The only way we can offer mercy to them is
through
this executive clemency extended to them by the President. If we still close
this avenue to them, they would be prejudiced even worse than the
murderers
and the more viscious killers in our society. I do not think they deserve this
opprobrium and punishment under the new Constitution.
I am in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Tan.
MR. ROMULO. We are ready to vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is this accepted by the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee, Madam President, prefers to submit this to
the floor and also because of the objection of the main proponent,
Commissioner
Davide. So we feel that the Commissioners should vote on this question.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Tan to delete the last sentence of Section 17 appearing on
lines 7, 8 and
9, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand (Few Members raised their
hand.)
approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, there are no more amendments on Section
17. There are two registered speakers for Section 18, Commissioners de
Castro and
Quesada.
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you, Madam President.
On line 15 of Section 18, instead of the words Monetary Board, insert

CONGRESS so it will read: The President may contract or guarantee foreign
and
domestic loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior
concurrence of CONGRESS.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, the Committee does not accept the
amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO. May I be allowed to explain my amendment?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro may explain his amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you, Madam President.
The external debt of the Philippines is $26 billion and this is the cause of our
economic crisis at this time. All these debts were contracted by the Chief
Executive without any check from the Batasan. We like a system of check
and balance in our system of government; that is, between the executive,
the
legislative and the judiciary. We do not like to put in the hands of the Chief
Executive alone the matter of contracting loans and increasing our external
debt. The proposition of the Committee is through the Monetary Board. The
members of the Monetary Board as we know, are still appointees of the
President.
In short, it is still the Chief Executive alone who will contract foreign debt for
us and put us into the morass of economic crisis. It is, therefore,
under the system of check and balance that Congress should have a hand in
contracting foreign debts or loans.
MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Villegas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS. I would like to suggest an amendment to the amendment of
Commissioner de Castro. First, let me give the background.
The function of borrowing is an executive prerogative that is subject to the
vagaries of national and international economic conditions. There are many
reasons for the government, meaning the Executive, to borrow: collapse of
prices of our export products that lead to very reduced government
revenues; a
sudden significant increase in the prices of goods that we import, especially

after the two oil shocks; a calamity that may affect the lives of thousands
of Filipinos; a drop in government revenues because of an economic slump,
limiting the governments ability to provide social services to the poor and to
pay employees like teachers, health workers and others, and I can go on and
on. Borrowing is not inherently evil and, again, I would like to say that there
is this tendency to emasculate the power of the Executive even in this
necessary economic function.
As we have informed the body earlier, in the Article on National Economy
and Patrimony, we are going to propose that the Monetary Board be
independent of
the Executive through a composition which would make the majority of the
members of the Monetary Board come from the private sector. And as we
have said,
the private sector is not synonymous with business. The private sector can
include representatives from labor and other groups. The amendment to the
amendment that I would like to suggest is: THE MONETARY BOARD SHALL FIX
A LIMIT TO FOREIGN BORROWING.
To give the background, there is a limit set by the Monetary Board to foreign
borrowings, which is 20 percent, called the debt service ratio; that is, the
ratio of the annual servicing of principal and interest to our total export
earnings both in goods and services. That can be set by the Monetary Board
because it has the expertise to determine what is a prudent limit. For
Congress to concur. I would suggest that the Monetary Board shall fix a limit
to
foreign borrowings which can be exceeded only with the concurrence of the
majority of Congress. I think that is where we should definitely have some
kind
of a check, if and when the Executive finds it necessary to exceed the limit
set by the Monetary Board. And I maintain that there are extraordinary
situations where the government should be able to go over the limit because
of an emergency. Then, that is the time that we should get the Congress to
concur. That is the amendment I would like to introduce.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, may I say a few words on the proposal of
the Honorable Villegas He speaks of a calamity which will prompt the
Executive to
contract foreign borrowings. The existence of a calamity is normally provided
in our budget which is not part of the foreign borrowings. The existence of a
calamity is normally provided in our budget which is not part of the foreign
borrowings. He speaks of a proposal on the work of a new Monetary Board.
Until
we see that Monetary Board will we be able to gauge the independence of
that body from the shackles of the Executive. We are fully aware that our
economic
morass at this time is due to the extravagance and the use of power by the
Executive without any check even from the Batasang Pambansa.
Madam President, before we go into foreign borrowings, our economists,
good as they are, should have a good planning, a three-year plan, a five-year
plan
and a ten-year plan, for the economic recovery of our country, so that they
will know from the very beginning how much they will borrow from a certain
year
to a certain year, and Congress should be part of this plan. Therefore,
concurrence of Congress is necessary.
I, therefore, present that foreign borrowings must have the concurrence of
Congress voting jointly.
MR. VILLEGAS. May I reply.
First of all, definitely, there are contingencies that are always included in the
budget of the government, but there are precisely certain types of
calamities that cannot be included in these contingencies, and this is just, as
I said, one of the many, many situations that may confront the Executive
which would require foreign borrowings.
I agree with the Commissioner that the five-year plan that is going to be
submitted by a central planning agency whether we call it NEDA or
something
else will be determined by the legislature and should include the amount
of borrowings that can be foreseen within a five-year horizon, for example.
But
we know very well that a plan is only a plan. For example, no one could have
foreseen the tremendous increase in oil prices in the 1970s, and that was
exactly why we have to give a lot of elbow room to the executive to meet the
contingencies from year to year. And I think, as long as we include the
provision that would make the Monetary Board independent by making sure
that the majority of the members will not be Cabinet ministers, it would be
sufficient to have the Monetary Board concur in ordinary borrowings. And as I
said, the exact amendment that I would like to suggest is on line 16 of page
8. After the word Board, the next sentence will read: THE MONETARY
BOARD SHALL FIX A LIMIT TO FOREIGN BORROWING WHICH CAN BE
EXCEEDED ONLY UPON
CONCURRENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS. Then continue: The
Monetary Board shall, within thirty (30) days . . .
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, one question. How often will the Monetary
Board fix the ceiling?
MR. VILLEGAS. This 20 percent that has been set by the Monetary Board has
been there for 10 years. So, it is something that should be left to the
Monetary
Board to decide.
MR. MAAMBONG. May we know the exact wordings again, please.
MR. VILLEGAS. The amendment will read: THE MONETARY BOARD SHALL FIX
A LIMIT TO FOREIGN BORROWING WHICH CAN BE EXCEEDED ONLY UPON
CONCURRENCE OF THE
MAJORITY OF CONGRESS. Then we can say JOINTLY or SEPARATELY.
MR. DE CASTRO. Does the proponent prefer SEPARATELY now?
MR. VILLEGAS. I will leave it to the Committee.
MR. DE CASTRO. Because the proponent said that the Monetary Board shall
fix a limit, how much is that limit.
MR. VILLEGAS. How much is the limit?
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS. I would leave it up to the Monetary Board. Right now, as I
said, the figure is 20 percent debt service ratio.
MR. DE CASTRO. This is the problem, Madam President. The Monetary Board
under the past regime had been cooperating with the Executive to put us
where we
are today. This is the very reason why we like a check by Congress.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD. May I ask Commissioner Villegas to yield to a few questions
just to clarify certain matters?
MR. VILLEGAS. Gladly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD. I would like to ask this question from the perspective of
Congress. Before the Congressmen were elected for four years. In our draft,
we are
recommending that they be elected for three years. The proponents
perception here is that the Monetary Board is given this duty and
responsibility because
it takes expertise and consistency to perform these duties. Am I correct?
MR. VILLEGAS. Exactly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Which may be absent in the case of Members of Congress?
MR. VILLEGAS. That is right.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Because they are being elected every three years, and if
they are not elected, there will be no consistencies. I am asking this question
from the perception of a Congressman because I served in the Congress and
I know the difficulties of a Congressman, even if he is an economist.
As an economist, what are the qualities that the proponent would expect
from a Monetary Board member in order to perform this particular
responsibility?
MR. VILLEGAS. He should understand, for example, the workings of the
international financial community: what happens to interest rates and
exchange rates
year in and year out, and what the demands of the domestic economy are as
far as money supply and credit are concerned. There are just so many that
these
should be left to experts in monetary management.
MR. NATIVIDAD. And these are just the basic qualifications?
MR. VILLEGAS. Exactly.
MR. NATIVIDAD. And even if one is an expert, his expertise must be updated.
Is that not correct?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Then, it goes to say that even in the Monetary Board, we
have to choose not only from among the most qualified but the most
experienced as
well to perform these duties. Does the Gentleman perceive a situation where
he will find this particular, specific and necessary qualification in Members
of Congress?
MR. VILLEGAS. Probably a few; yes, definitely.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Can he?
MR. VILLEGAS. There can be some. I am not prejudging the qualities of

Congressmen.
MR. NATIVIDAD. But they can be removed every three years, and when we
speak of expertise, we cannot speak in terms of three years. If a
Congressman will no
longer be there after three years, the consistency in updating the information
will be interrupted and the necessary contacts will be terminated. I am for
Congress to have the power to concur but I prefer that people should be
qualified. Regardless of what happened before, because that was yesterday,
I am
worried about today and tomorrow. It is not just because the Monetary Board
connived or conspired before; I have no evidence to that effect. But granting,
without admitting, that the Monetary Board failed in their duty to stop the
debauchery of public funds or loans, it would not justify the putting up of a
mechanism that is completely incapable of servicing this type of
responsibility and advising our President on the viability of foreign loans. Am
I correct,
Madam President?
MR. NATIVIDAD. I am putting aside what happened before. I just want to
learn from what happened before so it will not be repeated today or
tomorrow. And
the lesson I learned was to put the necessary people who are qualified in this
type of work. Maybe if Congress is fit for this type of work, well and good.
But replacing the Monetary Board with Congress, I would object to. How
about the Gentleman?
MR. VILLEGAS. I would also object.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Monsod would like to interpellate Commissioner
de Castro.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, before that, I would suggest that we
clarify the parliamentary situation. It appears to me that there was a primary
amendment suggested by Commissioner de Castro, which was supposed to
have been amended by a proposal of Commissioner Villegas. But the way I

see it. the
amendment of Commissioner Villegas is not really an amendment to the
amendment. The proposed amendment of Commissioner de Castro can
stand on its own
without the proposed amendment to the amendment by Commissioner
Villegas. So, I suggest very strongly, Madam President, that we take up at the
proper time;
according to the priorities of the Acting Floor Leader, the primary
amendment of Commissioner de Castro, then probably we can take up the
amendment of
Commissioner Villegas.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, the Acting Floor Leader agrees.
THE PRESIDENT. Before that, let us hear first Commissioner Monsod, if he has
anything to say on the proposed amendment of Commissioner de Castro.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, may I have a word on Commissioner
Natividads comment?
THE PRESIDENT. Just a minute. So that the Commissioners can just reply to
both, Commissioner Monsod would like to ask some questions.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just want to ask Commissioner de Castro
one question. In his proposal, is he saying that Congress voting jointly must
concur
with each and every loan that is going to be incurred by the government?
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes, because this thing is not an everyday loan. It is not
thought of just in one night and then gotten the following day. As I said, there
must be a five-year, ten-year economic plan. Based on that plan, we can now
determine the amount to borrow at a particular year, and Congress can then
approve it. Also, the Congress will have to look into the capability of the
country to pay before they will approve this.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may I just have one follow-up question on
that. If Congress voting jointly must concur with each and every loan, can I
also
assume that Congress then will look into the merits of the companies and the
projects for each and every loan in order to arrive at that conclusion?
MR. DE CASTRO. Certainly.
MR. MONSOD. Thank you.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I think we have discussed this enough. Can
we have the reaction of the Committee and submit the amendment to a
vote?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee has already reacted by not accepting the
amendment offered by Commissioner de Castro and has suggested that it be
put to a
vote.
MR. DE CASTRO. Before we vote, may I answer Commissioner Natividads
observations? He said that very few Congressmen are economists. They
normally do not
do what economists do. But Congressmen and Senators are supposed to be
responsible men, so that before they decide or look into a certain matter,
they
invite experts, just as we do in the Commission; we are not all experts on a
particular matter. For example, we invite experts from the Commission on
Elections and get their opinions on matters of elections. The Congressmen
alone will not decide, if they are responsible enough, without consulting
experts.
I submit the matter to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT. I think the issue is clear enough.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, before we vote, there is something that is
not clear. The amendment, as I heard it originally, would delete the words
the
Monetary Board on lines 15 and 16 and change them with the word
CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes.
MR. RODRIGO. But then later on, Commissioner de Castro said CONGRESS
VOTING JOINTLY. Which is which? Bit by bit, we seem to be changing our
bicameral
system to a unicameral system.
THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner de Castro please answer that?
MR. DE CASTRO. It should be CONGRESS VOTING SEPARATELY. I put JOINTLY
because it looks like the body is keen on this word. This time, it is CONGRESS
VOTING
SEPARATELY.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the amendment of Commissioner
de Castro, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
their hand.)
amendment is lost.
May we now have the amendment of Commissioner Villegas?
MR. VILLEGAS. On line 16, after the word Board and the period (.), insert
THE MONETARY BOARD SHALL FIX A LIMIT TO FOREIGN BORROWING WHICH
LIMIT CAN BE
EXCEEDED ONLY UPON CONCURRENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS,
then delete SEPARATELY.
THE PRESIDENT. VOTING SEPARATELY.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. Is this accepted by the Committee
MR. DAVIDE. Would the distinguished proponent yield to some clarificatory
questions?
MR. VILLEGAS. Gladly, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE. At present, we have the Foreign Borrowings Act which was
originally a law enacted by the Congress of the Philippines and then
amended by
several decrees thereafter. Would an approval of this amendment mount to a
repeal of the Foreign Borrowings Act?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, it would.
MR. DAVIDE. The repeal will immediately take effect upon the ratification of
the Constitution.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. So, before any further foreign borrowing may be made, it is
necessary that the Monetary Board must first fix the limits.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
MR. DAVIDE. Does not the proponent believe that the matter of fixing limits
to foreign borrowings is a prerogative of the legislature? And that was exactly
why the old Congress enacted the Foreign Borrowings Act.
MR. VILLEGAS. No. As I see it, it is a prerogative of the Executive with the
necessary check and balance from the legislative.
MR. DAVIDE. Under the old Congress, the law itself defined the limits within
which the President may pursue the matter of borrowing. In short, it is just
the implementation which is vested upon the Executive.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, that is true. But precisely, in the old regime, the
Monetary Board was not independent of the President and that is why we
need the
legislature to give the necessary check. But in this Constitution, we would
like to have an independent Monetary Board and it would be sufficient for
that
Monetary Board to be the one to set the limit.
MR. DAVIDE. And within the limit fixed by the Monetary Board, it would even
deprive Congress of repealing or modifying the same. In short, we will have a
Congress which is totally without any power to review, to modify or to repeal
the limits fixed by the Monetary Board. So, we will be enshrining a Monetary
Board which is even superior to those elected by the people.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, because foreign borrowing, as I said earlier, is a
prerogative of the Executive. And as long as there is that check coming from
the
legislative, I think that would be sufficient.
MR. DAVIDE. But under the proposal, the legislature would be deprived of
that particular check. As a matter of fact, it may be exceeded only with the
concurrence a of the majority of Congress. In short, the authority of Congress
to concur in cases where the borrowings may be in excess of the limit is
limited.
MR. DAVIDE. But basically, Congress cannot even touch what has been
approved as the limit by the Monetary Board. So, this would insulate the acts
of the
Monetary Board from the representatives of the people.
MR. VILLEGAS. The way by which Congress can influence the Monetary Board
would be to include in this Constitution the proposed Article on the National
Economy and Patrimony wherein Congress will determine how the Monetary
Board is going to be organized and its composition. I think this is where the
legislature can exercise its influence; in fact, it is a very powerful influence
on the Monetary Board.
MR. DAVIDE. The influence would only be in the composition and creation.
MR. DAVIDE. But not in the exercise of the authority. What is important is the
control or the check of the legislature on the exercise of that authority.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. Are we now ready to vote?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Will Commissioner Villegas accept an amendment to his
amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES. After hearing all these arguments, I propose that lines 13
to 15 will read as follows: The President may contract or guarantee foreign
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence
of the Monetary Board AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY
LAW. Would that be all right considering that this phrase is found in the
1973 Constitution that covers everything including the very brilliant
interpellation of Commissioner Davide?
MR. VILLEGAS. I accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. That will be in lieu of the entire sentence. Is that our
understanding?
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Quesada has an amendment to the

amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I would like to introduce an amendment to
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Villegas.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Just a minute; I think my amendment has been accepted
by Commissioner Villegas.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes. It is different now.
MR. DE LOS REYES. So what happens?
THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner de los Reyes please read it for the benefit
of Commissioner Quesada?
MR. DE LOS REYES. It will read: . . . with the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED
BY LAW.
MS. QUESADA. But still, I would like to introduce an amendment that will be
in keeping with the idea that contracting big loans, as a matter of fact, puts
the entire citizenry under an economic burden. It should not just be the
responsibility of the government or the Monetary Board but the entire Filipino
people, to be aware that these loans will be a burden for the rest of their
lives and those of their grandchildren. And, therefore, my suggestion is that
the President should allow public hearings before the concurrence of the
Monetary Board. I think this is what we are talking about earlier; there must
be
the representation of the people. This is an important decision that the
President will make and we should be aware that our childrens children are
going
to be indebted for the rest of their lives.
I think we can draw a lot of lessons from the history of Nigeria where the
matter of borrowing from the IMF was submitted by the President to the
people
and it took them about three months to decide on this. But then, the people
were educated; they were informed; and they knew what they were rejecting
or
what they were going into. So, I believe that this particular dimension is a
manifestation of our belief that the people should be consulted and it should
not just be left to the seven members of the Monetary Board I think the
mechanisms for such a public hearing can easily be provided by Congress.
MR. GASCON. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON. Before Commissioner Quesada presents her amendment, I
would like to make a clarification. Has Commissioner Villegas withdrawn his
proposed
amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS. No, it is in addition to the proposed amendment.
MR. GASCON. Because the Gentlemans amendment is on line 16, but
Commissioner de los Reyes proposal is prior to this additional sentence.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair asks Commissioner Villegas if he is withdrawing
this other amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, now I understand. The amendment would no longer be
needed since it would be included in that general expression.
MR. GASCON. So, Commissioner Villegas has withdrawn his amendment, and
now I think it is up to the Committee to accept or not the amendment of
Commissioner
de los Reyes before we go to Commissioner Quesadas amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, precisely, in order not to violate the rule
on third degree amendment, I think the amendment, as amended by
Commissioner de
los Reyes, should now be presented to the Committee, and after that,
Commissioner Quesada may present another amendment in the nature of a
primary
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. So, this will be a joint amendment now of Commissioners
Villegas and de los Reyes?
MR. ROMULO. Yes, Madam President. May we ask Commissioner de los Reyes
to read it again.
MR. DE LOS REYES. The first sentence of Section 18 will read: The President
may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, AND SUBJECT
TO SUCH LIMITATION AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. ROMULO. Let us vote on that amendment, Madam President.

MR. DE LOS REYES. No. What does the Committee say?
MR. SUMULONG. The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Thank you.
MR. REGALADO. It being understood that the subsequent sentence proposed
by Commissioner Villegas, is withdrawn.
THE PRESIDENT. So, then let us vote first on this amendment.
MS. QUESADA. Madam President, before we vote on this amendment of
Commissioner de los Reyes, may I just be clarified? When we say SUBJECT
TO SUCH
LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, would this process include the
legislature?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.
MS. QUESADA. Would this entail public hearings?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, before the legislature enacts a law, it has to conduct
public hearings in order to be informed of what to do.
MS. QUESADA. At the committee level?
MR. DE LOS REYES. At the committee level and the plenary sessions.
MS. QUESADA. So, with that understanding, Madam President, I suppose the
primary concern that I presented earlier would then be addressed. Is that
correct?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.
MS. QUESADA. So, Madam President, I withdraw my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. In view of that explanation of Commissioner de los Reyes?
MS. QUESADA. Yes, because of the understanding that when they go through
this legislative process, there would be public hearings because that is to our
interest; the people should know the loans that our country is contracting.
MR. GASCON. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Gascon is recognized.

MR. GASCON. Before we vote on the proposed amendment of Commissioner
de los Reyes, although Commissioner Quesada feels that the issue of public
consultation may be included, I do not think her proposal will be prejudiced if
she still wishes to consider and present that amendment after, because we
are speaking of setting limitations and I think she is speaking of the process
involved in setting such a limitation. I only want to clarify that.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Commissioner Quesada said that because of the
explanation that when the matter is presented to the Congress, as a rule
Congress
conducts hearings with the committees before a particular law is enacted,
she has agreed to withdraw her amendment.
MS. QUESADA. Yes. Would Commissioner de los Reyes then accept me as a
cosponsor with that understanding?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Gladly, and I am honored.
MS. QUESADA. Thank you, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President, for further clarification of the idea of
public hearings, would this also mean extensive and systematic public
hearings
which are out of town? I mention this because, I think, the question of
economy is much too serious to be left to economists. For instance, as social
science researchers, it is our experience that in considering the economic
programs, loans specifically, and the other sociocultural components of
society,
the environment is often forgotten. In the case of the Chico Dam and the
other dams down in the south, the question of loans is often seen merely in
terms
of energy equations but not in terms of the cultural values of the people. And
our experience tells us that had we held extensive out-of-town public
hearings, many of these problems would have been obviated. So, I am
suggesting that public hearings should not be held only in the halls of
Congress or
wherever, but systematic and extensive public hearings should be held out
of town where the people are.
THE PRESIDENT. So, these proposals can be included in a proposed bill that
will be presented to Congress.
THE PRESIDENT. This is a joint amendment of Commissioners Villegas, de los

Reyes and Quesada. After the word Board on line 16 of page 8, the words
SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW are inserted.
Did I put it correctly?
THE PRESIDENT. May I be informed if this is accepted by the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. It is accepted.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I think that is the end of Section 18.
Commissioner Foz has an amendment on Section 19.
MR. FOZ. Madam President.
MR. FOZ. This amendment of mine has prior clearance of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT. On what line?
MR. FOZ. This is on line 25. The amendment seeks to delete in the
enumeration of the officials, the words chiefs of bureaus or offices. I have
informed
the Committee that not only chief of bureaus or offices and their assistants
but also all government officials and employees falling under the career
service of the civil service are already prohibited under the existing civil
service rules from engaging in any business or in the practice of any
profession without the permission of their department head. And the same
rules also provide that the department head has the duty to see to it that if
he
grants such permission, there shall be no conflict of interest in the discharge
of their official functions and in the pursuit of their private endeavors.
MR. REGALADO. For the benefit of all the Commissioners, may we ask
Commissioner Foz to please read the sentence starting with The President,
minus the
words that he seeks to delete?
MR. FOZ. So, Section 19, as amended, would now read: The President, VicePresident, members of the Cabinet, and their assistants shall not, et cetera.
So, delete the words chiefs of bureaus or offices.
THE PRESIDENT. How about their assistants?

MR. REGALADO. Who are referred to as the assistants of the members of the
Cabinet?
MR. FOZ. The words their assistants would now refer to members of the
Cabinet.
MR. REGALADO. Clarification, Madam President. Who are referred to here as
the assistants of the members of the Cabinet?
MR. FOZ. In my interpellation of the Committee Chairman during the
sponsorship period, I asked the same question: Who are the assistants
referred to here?
And the answer given by the Committee was that they refer to the deputy
ministers or the assistants of the chiefs of bureaus or offices. So then, we
have
to retain the words and their assistants in referring to the deputies of the
Cabinet members.
MR. REGALADO. So, shall we specify The President, Vice-President, AND
members of the Cabinet, AND THEIR DEPUTIES?
MR. FOZ. Yes, I accept the suggestion that instead of the words their
assistants, it should be their DEPUTIES. Maybe we should also add OR
assistants.
THE PRESIDENT. I see many vacant seats. The session is suspended for a few
minutes.
It was 5:46 p.m.
Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ. Madam President, before we suspended the session, there was a
suggestion to put the words DEPUTIES OR to be followed by the existing word
assistants. So, line 26 will now read DEPUTIES OR assistants shall not . . .
Is the Committee accepting the amendment?
THE PRESIDENT. For clarification, will Commissioner Foz please repeat the
proposed amendment?
MR. FOZ. The amendment consists of the following: on line 26, add the words
DEPUTIES OR before the word assistants.
THE PRESIDENT. How about chiefs of bureaus or offices? Have we approved
that?
MR. REGALADO. It has been accepted, Madam President, so that it will read:
The President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and their DEPUTIES
OR
assistants . . .
MR. RODRIGO. I would like to be clear about this because I am the Chairman
of the Committee on Style. I would like to know the meaning of members of
the
Cabinet and their DEPUTIES OR assistants, because since we went back to
the presidential system, I remember that the members of the Cabinet were
called
secretaries and undersecretaries. Is that what is meant here?
MR. RODRIGO. So that I can change this in the Committee on Style later?
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this particular amendment of
Commissioner Foz which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
Is there any other amendment?
MR. FOZ. Madam President, this is the last amendment. On page 9, line 5,
after the word . . .
REV. RIGOS. I have an anterior amendment to that, Madam President, on
page 8.
REV. RIGOS. On Section 19, line 26, delete the word term and in lieu
thereof insert the word TENURE. Commissioner Nolledo is a coauthor of this
amendment.
MR. SUMULONG. We accept.
MR. FOZ. May I proceed with my other amendment, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT. There is a proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos
which has been accepted by the Committee. So, let us vote on that first.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos
the
MR. FOZ. May I proceed with my other amendment, Madam President?
MR. FOZ. This is on page 9, line 5. Between the words or and head, I
would like to insert the words CHAIRMEN OR. The intention is to specify just
the
persons being referred to when we speak of bureaus and offices. Or the
additional amendments I will have later on have to do with governmentowned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. On line 6, after the word
office, insert the following words: INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR
CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES. Those are the proposed changes.
MR. REGALADO. How will the entire paragraph now read with the suggested
amendments?
MR. FOZ. I will read the paragraph: The spouse and relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the President shall
not be
appointed as ministers, deputy ministers, CHAIRMEN OR heads of bureaus or
offices, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS
AND THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES.
May we hear the response of the Committee? I was informed that ministers
and deputy ministers will be changed to secretaries or undersecretaries. That
is
part of the style, I suppose.
MR. REGALADO. The Committee on Style will take care of all those changes
in terminology.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the proposed amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. SUMULONG. Accepted.
MR. FOZ. Thank you, Madam President.
Commissioner Foz which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Nolledo wants to propose a
posterior amendment, with the indulgence of the other Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Madam President.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my amendment consists of an
additional section. This should be considered as Section 24, because I
understand
Commissioner Ople presented an amendment consisting of one section and
it was accepted by the Committee.
So, the last section in the committee report is Section 22, plus the
amendment of Commissioner Ople, which will be Section 23. This will be
Section 24. It
reads as follows: SEC. 24. ALL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS CONSTITUTION VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
UNDER EXISTING LAWS
AS WELL AS THOSE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS NOT VESTED IN ANY
PARTICULAR OFFICIAL SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE PRESIDENT UNLESS THE
CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE
OTHERWISE.
That is my amendment. Before the Committee decides whether to accept or
reject the amendment, I would like to explain briefly, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO. I think all of us are aware that we have laws consisting of acts
of the old Philippine legislature, acts of the old Philippine Commission,
decrees and proclamations that are still valid and existing. And there are
provisions giving certain powers and functions to the President or the Chief
Executive. In view of the legal maxim of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, I
think a safety valve in the form of this proposal should be contained in
the Constitution. May we ask the reaction of the Committee?
FR. BERNAS. The Committee would not violently react against this. But just
for the record, we would like to be clarified about certain provisions which
might be inconsistent with this Constitution. Specifically, for instance, is the
power to sequester inconsistent with this Constitution, particularly the
Bill of Rights?
MR. NOLLEDO. This provision is fully consistent with the Bill of Rights, but I
may say that this may be qualified by provisions in the Transitory
Provisions of the Constitution.
FR. BERNAS. No, I realize that the intention is that the proponent is only
adopting those which are consistent with the Bill of Rights. But specifically,
in his judgment and in the spirit of this amendment, is it his intention to
include the power to sequester as one of the powers that will be continuing
until Congress provides otherwise?
MR. NOLLEDO. Not necessarily, but without prejudice to the provisions in the
Transitory Provisions.
FR. BERNAS. Perhaps, I should ask it more directly. Does the proponent
consider the power to sequester as inconsistent with Section 3 of our Bill of
Rights
now?
MR. NOLLEDO. I would say so, and that is why there is a need for a qualifying
provision in the event the Commission so decides in the Transitory
Provisions.
MR. DAVIDE. Could I request the proponent to take this up in the Transitory
Provisions? I strongly feel that the proper area for this or the proper situs
is the Transitory Provisions. I understand that in the Transitory Provisions,
there will be provisions to the effect that all laws, executive orders, etc.,
shall remain valid until otherwise repealed by the Congress of the
Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman will note that in the 1973 Constitution, there
appeared as the last provision of the Article on the President a similar
provision. I think its proper place is under the executive department.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, just for the information of the
Commission, I am a member of the Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions, and as a
matter of fact, I was the one who proposed a resolution similar to the one
being proposed now by Commissioner Nolledo. And my Chairman,
Commissioner
Suarez, is here to attest that the proposed resolution has already been
approved.
MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you; I will make the Gentleman a coauthor.
MR. MAAMBONG. Gladly, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO. I strongly recommend to the Committee that this should
appear in the Article on the Executive.
MR. REGALADO. We notice that Commissioner Maambong is just waiting for it
to be thrown to his direction.
MR. NOLLEDO. I am not inclined to do that. What does the Committee say,
please?
MS. AQUINO. That proposed amendment of Commissioner Nolledo is fraught

with a lot of danger. I would likewise endorse the position of Commissioner
Davide
on this matter, that it be taken up in the Committee that is perpetually in
transition, the Committee of Commissioner Suarez.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, I will repeat what I have said. The
resolution which we filed practically on the same term had already been
taken up by the
Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions and had, in fact, been
approved already. Chairman, Commissioner Suarez, is here.
MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, for a parliamentary information. On July 22,
1986, the proposal submitted by the Honorable Maambong was approved by
our
Committee, and I will read this particular provision, if it will satisfy the fears
expressed by the Honorable Nolledo:
All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of
instructions and other executive issuances not consistent with this
Constitution
shall remain operative until amended, modified or repealed by Congress.
If the Gentleman would like to be a coauthor of that resolution, he is most
welcome.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez, this refers to laws or decrees. I
believe the proposed amendment of Commissioner Nolledo refers to powers
of the
Executive or the President.
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, powers pertinent to the President and not vested upon
any particular official So, I think there is a fundamental difference which the
Madam President so correctly pointed out.
MR. SUAREZ. Except that we will assume that those powers are granted by
virtue of laws, decrees executive orders, proclamations, etc.
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, in order to abbreviate the proceedings, I
hereby withdraw my amendment.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be

recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, this is also with respect to Section 19,
page 9, lines 3 to 6.
Before I propose my amendment, I would like to know the intent of the
Committee. Is it the sense of this provision that if a Vice-President becomes
Acting
President to serve the unexpired term of the disabled or recently departed
President, relatives of that Vice-President, now Acting President, who may be
serving as ministers in the Cabinet will have to resign? In other words, would
this particular prohibitory provision have retroactive effect on
minister-relatives of a Vice President who becomes Acting President?
FR. BERNAS. Line 9 says shall not be appointed, so that prohibition is on
appointment, not on continuing the hold on the office. So, in a situation like
that, if the Vice-President becomes President and a relative of his is already
holding office, then that is not covered by this because he did not have to
exercise any appointment.
MR. VILLACORTA. In other words, the focus is on the appointing process.
FR. BERNAS. Yes. The restriction is on the appointing authority.
MR. VILLACORTA. So that the Cabinet members, as well as bureau heads,
should not be related by blood to the appointing power?
FR. BERNAS. No, they should not. The appointing authority should not
appoint relatives.
MR. VILLACORTA. The intendment of the provision then is to prevent
nepotism.
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. VILLACORTA. But would it not also breed nepotism if a Vice-President,
who is now Acting President, had close relatives within his Cabinet?
FR. BERNAS. If the Gentleman would like to propose an amendment to that
effect, that is not covered by this.
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, because I am addressing my amendment to the real
intent of this provision; that is, to prevent close relatives from serving a
President or an Acting President. So, I wonder if the Committee would

consider this amendment: IF THE VICE-PRESIDENT BECOMES ACTING
PRESIDENT, HIS
RELATIVES WHO ARE INCUMBENT SECRETARIES, UNDERSECRETARIES, OR
HEADS OF BUREAUS OR OFFICES, SHALL BE OBLIGED TO RESIGN
IMMEDIATELY.
FR. BERNAS. If he becomes Acting President?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes. In other words, he will be serving the unexpired term
of a President who has become permanently disabled or who has died.
FR. BERNAS. In that case, he is not Acting President.
MR. VILLACORTA. So, the correct wording should be: IF THE VICE-PRESIDENT
BECOMES PRESIDENT.
With that modification, would the Committee accept that amendment?
FR. BERNAS. I think we should leave that to the body, because the meaning
of this is, we want to prevent the appointing authority from using his
appointing
power to give this favor to relatives. In the particular example, it is not the
successor who made the appointment, but rather, his predecessor. So,
strictly, there was no nepotism in the appointment.
MR. VILLACORTA. But there might be a case of nepotism in the course of
continuing their duties in the case of a Vice-President who is acting as
President.
FR. BERNAS. What I am saying is that nepotism, in the technical sense,
applies to the act of appointment.
MR. VILLACORTA. But I am using the word nepotism in its broadest sense;
probably the right word is favoritism, or the difficulty on the part of the
President to be objective in relating to members of his Cabinet because they
are close relatives.
FR. BERNAS. If the Commissioners intention is to cover that situation, we
would have to change the words shall not be appointed as Ministers to
SHALL
NOT SERVE AS.
MR. VILLACORTA. Would this phrase, SHALL NOT SERVE AS, as an
alternative amendment, be acceptable?
BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Villacorta a

question?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI. Does not Commissioner Villacorta think that that might be
unfair to those who may have previously risen to their posts by virtue of
sheer
merit and will now be prejudiced just because, by an accident of history,
their relative has been elevated to the highest office in the land?
MR. VILLACORTA. In the same vein, it would be considered unfair if we apply
the original provision as is. The relatives of the President would also say
that this provision is unfair because it bars them from any appointment by
the appointing authority, just because they are related to the President.
BISHOP BACANI. They are barred from appointment by the President, but if
they had been there already before he became President, then they will not
be
barred from continuing in office.
MR. VILLACORTA. I am trying to go back to the root motive of this provision
as I interpret it; that is, that we do not want to subject the President to
public criticism. Neither would we want him to be tempted to favor his
relatives if they are in his Cabinet. That is my interpretation of this provision.
That is why I would like the Committee to clarify whether this is the real
motive behind this provision-that we would really want the holder of the
highest
post in the land to be free from this burden of having to deal day to day with
his relatives, who are also members of his official family.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, will Commissioner Villacorta accept an
MR. VILLACORTA. I would like to hear the Commissioners amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES. My amendment is that the Commissioners proposal may
apply to the secretaries a and undersecretaries because they are members
of the
Cabinet. However, we may exclude the heads of the bureaus or other offices
which are career positions oftentimes.
MR. VILLACORTA. Career positions, yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES. For example, the Directors of the NBI, Bureau of Lands,
Bureau of Soils and others. To that extent, will the Commissioner accept my
amendment?
MR. VILLACORTA. How would the Commissioner word the amendment, if I
may ask?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Will the Commissioner please read his amendment?
MR. VILLACORTA. On page 9, after line 6, I propose to add a new section to
read: IF THE VICE-PRESIDENT BECOMES PRESIDENT, HIS RELATIVES WHO
ARE INCUMBENT
SECRETARIES, UNDERSECRETARIES, OR HEADS OF BUREAUS OR OFFICES,
SHALL BE OBLIGED TO RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.
MR. DE LOS REYES. I propose to delete the words OR HEADS OF BUREAUS
OR OFFICERS.
MR. VILLACORTA. In that case, I am accepting that amendment to my
amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES. What is the reaction of the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. Let us have the entire amendment, as amended.
MR. VILLACORTA. IF THE VICE-PRESIDENT BECOMES PRESIDENT, HIS
RELATIVES WHO ARE INCUMBENT SECRETARIES AND UNDERSECRETARIES
SHALL BE OBLIGED TO RESIGN
IMMEDIATELY.
THE PRESIDENT. May the Chair be clarified. Are these related within the third
civil degree?
MR. VILLACORTA. These relatives would be in third civil degree.
MR. FOZ. May we ask the proponent of the amendment a question?
THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. FOZ. Is the proponent suggesting that we add new paragraph or
sentence after line 6?
MR. VILLACORTA. Either a new paragraph or a sew sentence.

MR. FOZ. It must be one or the other.
MR. VILLACORTA. If the Commissioner insists, then I propose a new
paragraph.
MR. FOZ. Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO. May make an observation. If that amendment is approved, we
will be more strict with the Vice-President than with the President because
while
the prohibition on the President is from appointing his relatives, the poor
Vice-President who succeeds cannot appoint his relatives and not only that,
his
relatives who are already in those positions will have to resign. Why should
we be more strict with the Vice-President who becomes President than with
the
President?
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would like to be clarified. Does the Commissioner
envision a situation where, let us say, the wife of the Vice-President is
appointed by the President to a Cabinet position? When the Vice-President
becomes President, he as President and his wife will be in the Cabinet. Is the
Commissioner foreseeing such a situation?
MR. VILLACORTA. Yes, Madam President, that is exactly one of the situations
that I foresee and that I would like to prevent because we have had many
sad
experiences in the past dispensation whereby many relatives of the President
were appointed as officials of his government. At any rate, the heads of
bureaus and offices will not be included in the prohibition. We are more
worried about the Cabinet.
MR. RODRIGO. But my point still holds. May I read the provision on lines 3 to
5:
degree of the President shall not be appointed as minister . . .
So in the case of the President, the prohibition is from appointing his own
close relatives, while in the case of the Vice-President, even if his close
relatives have already been appointed by somebody else not by him, these
relatives would be affected; they would have to resign if by accident the
President dies and the poor Vice-President becomes President.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA. I am aware of a previous motion which suggested that the
promotion to the career service would go as far as the undersecretary or the
deputy
minister. That is why we have a former undersecretary, Mr. Narciso
Albarracin, who rose from the ranks. I wonder if persons such as he would
also be
included in the amendment proposed by the honorable Commissioner.
MR. VILLACORTA. Is the Commissioner proposing an amendment to delete
the Deputy Minister?
MR. GUINGONA. I do not know what the practice would be. But if the ongoing
practice then would eventually be adopted, perhaps we should exclude also
the
undersecretaries. I am not making any proposal but I have in mind the
undersecretaries who have risen from the ranks like the bureau directors.
I have another question, Madam President. What if an undersecretary has
risen from the ranks and a relative is elected President? If the President-elect
assumes office, would that particular undersecretary have to resign from his
position because of the election of his relative as President?
MR. VILLACORTA. If the Commissioner is talking about an elected President,
then that would not be covered here because we are talking about a
Vice-President who becomes President.
MR. GUINGONA. Yes, but the Commissioners concern is not on the matter of
appointment but on the day-to-day relationship between the President and
the
officials that he has mentioned.
MR. VILLACORTA. So, the Commissioner is asking: If the Vice-President, after
having served the unexpired term of the previous President is elected
legitimately to the presidency, should his relatives who are secretaries and
undersecretaries resign?
MR. GUINGONA. No. I am talking of a situation where a person was already
an undersecretary before the President had assumed office, but who
happened to be
related to the President within the third degree of consanguinity. If the
Commissioners idea is that it is not important whether or not that person is
appointed but what is important is their relationship, then perhaps that
should also be covered in the prohibition.
MR. VILLACORTA. My interpretation is that the prohibition in the last case
that. the Commissioner mentioned would be covered by the original
provision
shall not be appointed as . . . Usually, the spouse and relatives of the
President shall not be appointed In other words, a newly elected President
now
assumes an appointing power and, therefore, would be barred under this
provision from reappointing.
MR. GUINGONA. So, the Commissioner is talking not only of appointment but
even reappointment. But there is no provision that will require the President
to
reappoint. He may allow a person to continue as an undersecretary. This
undersecretary I am talking about was appointed by his predecessor.
MR. VILLACORTA. I think that question should be thrown to the Committee.
May we request clarification from the Committee whether or not this is also
part
of the intendment; that is, does this prohibit not only appointment but also
reappointment?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee, after listening to the proposed amendment
and the reasons adduced in its favor and those against it, does not accept
the
amendment and prefers that it be submitted to the floor.
MR. UKA. Madam President, may I make two observations?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA. There is a saying during the days of the Roman Empire which says
dura lex sed lex which means that the law is hard but that is the law. So, let
us
not make hard laws. Besides, this thing refers to appointment. If they are
already there and they have been promoted or they rose by sheer luck, by
merit,
or by accident, let us not try to bother them. Let us be merciful; let us
temper justice with mercy. Besides, we cannot choose our relatives. I have
cousins who are not very good but I cannot say they are not my cousins. We
cannot choose; we are products of accidents. Once a child is conceived, that
poor child could not have any desire and say, I want that man to be my
father or I want that woman to be my mother. It has so happened that so
and so
met and something happened. So one cannot have any say on the matter.
Talking about relations, it is hard to really define all these things. So, let us
try
not to be very harsh because we cannot choose our relatives.
MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, I do not think that the last question of
Commissioner Guingona was answered adequately by the Committee. We
have not yet
asked the Committee whether it would accept my amendment or not. The
question posed by Commissioner Guingona was whether this provision in this
Article
would cover reappointments. Would it constitute a prohibition against
reappointments?
MR. REGALADO. The original proposed paragraph will cover reappointments.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, may I propose an amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Villacorta?
MR. GUINGONA. My amendment is to delete UNDERSECRETARIES or
DEPUTY MINISTERS. Will the Commissioner accept?
MR. VILLACORTA. I accept the amendment.
MR. GUINGONA. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. In other words, it is limited only to the Ministers or the
Secretaries.
What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS. It becomes unnecessary anyway because the practice is that
when there is a new President, the Cabinet members usually tender their
courtesy
resignations.
MR. VILLACORTA. Therefore, the former Vice-President, who is now President,
will be constrained not to appoint his relatives. Then, if that is the intent,
I desist from proposing my amendment.
Who is the next proponent? Does Commissioner Villacorta have any other
proposed amendment?
MR. VILLACORTA. I have another amendment on Section 20.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, there are prior amendments to Section 20.
THE PRESIDENT. Then, let us call those with prior amendments.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Aquino has an anterior amendment on Section
19.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, the propose amendment pertains to Section
19, on Page 8, lines 29 and 30. For purposes of symmetry with line 28, on
line 29 I
propose to insert OR INDIRECTLY between the words directly and in, so it
would read: financially interested directly OR INDIRECTLY in any contract
with. . .
On line 30, delete the word financial and substitute it with FRANCHISE.
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts. Actually, the word financial here
is only a typographical error. We will substitute it with FRANCHISE.
approved.
MS. AQUINO. On page 9, line 4, after the word not add the words DURING
HIS TERM such that the line would read: within the third civil degree of the
President shall not DURING HIS TERM be appointed as . . .
MR. DAVIDE. Will the proponent yield to an amendment? Instead of TERM, I
propose TENURE.
MS. AQUINO. That means that if the President resigns halfway during his
term, then he cannot appoint.
MR. DAVIDE. That is why we should use the word TENURE instead of TERM,
because the elected President may not be able to finish his term.
MS. AQUINO. Considering that these are executive appointments, I will
accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection from the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts the amendment. It makes the
period more specific.
approved.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President
THE PRESIDENT. The Vice-President, Commissioner Padilla, is recognized.
MR. PADILLA. On that same line, line 4, it mentions third civil degree of
relationship. That would include first degree father or son; second degree
brother or sister; and third degree uncle or nephew. But most of our close
relatives would include the fourth civil degree the first cousin. Will the
Committee agree to change the word third to FOURTH?
MR. REGALADO. Originally, the Committee considered the fourth civil degree
relationship as it is the a standard prohibition even in statutes, but it was
felt by some Committee members that we might be depriving the country of
the services of some competent officials who just happen to be the first
cousins
of the President. So we would submit it to the floor.
MR. PADILLA. Usually we do not appoint those in the first degree like the
father or the son; those in the second degree like the brother or the sister;
and
those in the third degree relationship like the uncle or the nephew. But most
of the appointments which may be considered as nepotism, are first cousins,
and that would fall under the fourth degree.
MR. REGALADO. My original proposal in the Committee was within the fourth
civil degree, but there was not a common concordance on that, so we
suggest that
the matter now be submitted to the wisdom of the body.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, as a cosponsor of Proposed Resolution

No. 128 together with Commissioners de los Reyes, Ople and Natividad, let
me add that
originally we did place the term third civil degree, but as pointed out by
the Vice-President, there was a move to include the fourth civil degree to
which we resisted, and that is why it still remains as third civil degree. This
is just for the record, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. We can proceed to vote on this.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla changing
the word third to FOURTH, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised
their hand.)
approved.
MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President.
These are minor amendments. On page 8, line 27, after the word
employment add the following: EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
THIS CONSTITUTION.
MR. FOZ. May we just ask the proponent of the amendment a question?
MR. FOZ. In the Commissioners amendment, is he referring to a public office
or employment?
MR. DAVIDE. I am referring to any office in the government. I introduced that
particular amendment because we have allowed the Vice-President to be
appointed to the Cabinet. Without that particular phrase, the Vice-President

may no longer be appointed as a member of the Cabinet.
MR. FOZ. I ask the question because during my interpellations of the
Committee yesterday and the day before, I precisely asked just what the
Committee had
in mind, whether it is a public office or a private office and the answer I got
was that it is a private office or private employment.
MR. DAVIDE. I was not aware of that.
MR. FOZ. The Commissioners proposed amendment would clearly indicate a
public office or public employment.
MR. DAVIDE. I cannot remember that the Committee had answered that the
phrase office or employment referred to here is a private office or
employment. I
would like to inquire from the Committee if that was really the interpretation.
MR. REGALADO. I explained it during the suspension of the proceedings to
Commissioner Foz that it refers to employment in a private office as well as
in a
public office which may otherwise be incompatible with the functions of his
own office or where he is disqualified. It is a prohibition against private
office and public office unless otherwise allowed.
MR. FOZ. In other words, it is in both senses that we are using the term
office or employment. But then I just do not know how any provision of the
Constitution could provide that the President, the Vice-President or members
of the Cabinet could be allowed to occupy any private office.
MR. DAVIDE. We have the provision here which the body took up yesterday
on the matter of the Vice-President. The Vice-President may be appointed as
a
member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation. That is
the last paragraph of Section 3. That is precisely the reason I am introducing
this particular amendment making it really an exception. So it should be
EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CONSTITUTION. Otherwise, we
will have
conflicting provisions.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, will the Gentleman yield?
MR. RODRIGO. Is there any need for such a provision? Is it not a rule in
statutory construction that when there is a general rule and a particular rule,
the particular rule is followed?
MR. DAVIDE. That may be true. But there is also the same rule in statutory
construction that the later provision shall prevail.
MR. RODRIGO. It might just be a redundancy because it is very clear that
while we have a general provision here about the President and VicePresident not
being able to hold any other office, there is a specific provision that the VicePresident may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet. I think it is
understood that that is an exception to this general rule.
MR. DAVIDE. If the interpretation to be read into the record, for purposes of
guiding subsequent application or interpretation of the Constitution, would
be that despite Section 19, Section 3 in the matter of the Vice-President
should prevail, I will not insist if that is the thinking and the meaning. Is
that the thinking of the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. That is the thinking of the Committee and it even was so
understood under the previous Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE. Then I withdraw, but I have another amendment on page 9, line
5.
REV. RIGOS. Madam President, if Commissioner Davide will allow me, I have
an amendment on page 8, line 27.
Between the words any and profession, insert the word OTHER. The line
will now read: . . . nor may they practice any OTHER profession.
MR. REGALADO. I think the purpose of Commissioner Rigos is just for
symmetry because it is preceded by hold any other office or employment,
nor may they
practice any OTHER profession.
It that the purpose of Commissioner Rigos?
REV. RIGOS. Yes.
MR. REGALADO. That will be all right. We accept the amendment.
approved.
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. On page 9, line 5, after the word as, insert the following:
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, OR THE
JUDICIARY OR so that the amended line will read: be appointed as MEMBERS
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
OR THE JUDICIARY,
OR as ministers, deputy ministers or heads of . . .
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA. Would the distinguished proponent accept an amendment to
his amendment to limit this prohibition to members of collegiate courts? The
judges
of the lower courts perhaps would not have the same category or the same
standing as the others mentioned here.
MR. DAVIDE. Pursuant to the post amendment, we already included here
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries which are
not even
very sensitive positions. So with more reason that the prohibition should
apply to appointments in these bodies.
FR. BERNAS. What is common among these people Ministers, Deputy
Ministers, heads of bureaus or offices is that they are under the control of
the
President.
MR. GUINGONA. That is correct.
FR. BERNAS. Whereas, the other offices the Commissioner mentioned are
independent offices.
MR. DAVIDE. The idea of the proposal is that about the end of the term of the
President, he may prolong his rule indirectly by appointing people to these
sensitive positions, like the commissions, the Ombudsman, the judiciary, so
he could perpetuate himself in power even beyond his term of office;
therefore
foreclosing the right of his successor to make appointments to these

positions. We should realize that the term of the President is six years and
under
what we had voted on, there is no reelection for him. Yet he can continue to
rule the country through appointments made about the end of his term to
these
sensitive positions.
FR. BERNAS. At any rate, there are other checks as far as the appointment of
those officers is concerned.
MR. DAVIDE. Only insofar as the Commission on Appointments is concerned
for offices which would require consent, and the Judicial Bar Council insofar
as
the judiciary is concerned.
FR. BERNAS. We leave the matter to the body for a vote.
MR. TINGSON. Madam President, may I just ask one question of the
proponent?
MR. TINGSON. Even though the members of the Presidents family are
related to him, shall we bar the men of probity, honesty and specialized
technical
knowledge from being appointed?
MR. DAVIDE. That is precisely the core or the meat and the heart of the
prohibition. In effect, it is just extending it to these sensitive positions that I
have mentioned.
MR. TINGSON. But in a sense would that not be counterproductive?
MR. DAVIDE. If that is the thinking of the Commissioner, he should rather
propose for the deletion of the entire sentence since that is really its effect.
MR. TINGSON. Will the Commissioner join me if I do?
MR. DAVIDE. No. As a matter of fact, I am expanding the prohibition. But if
the Commissioners position is that we might be prohibiting these capable
men
who are relatives of the President, then the deletion would be proper, which I
am not in favor of.
MR. TINGSON. Madam President, we have already limited the presidency to

one term, predicated on the fact that he will now become a statesman rather
than a
partisan politician. Then he will be acting for the good of our country; that is,
we base that philosophy with that predicate. So I am just wondering why
we should not utilize these men who, according to Commissioner Uka,
happen to have committed a crime of being related to the President.
MR. DAVIDE. Is the Commissioner proposing that as an amendment to my
amendment?
MR. TINGSON. I would like to.
MR. DAVIDE. In the sense that the Commissioners amendment is to delete
the entire sentence?
MR. TINGSON. Is that the Commissioners thinking also?
MR. DAVIDE. No, I am entirely for the opposite.
MR. TINGSON. Then, I am not insisting anymore.
MR. DAVIDE. If the Commissioner is introducing it as an amendment, I am
sorry, I have to reject his proposal.
THE PRESIDENT. So, let us now proceed to the amendment of Commissioner
Davide.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, may I just offer one more amendment to
the distinguished proponent? After the word JUDICIARY, we insert: EXCEPT
JUDGES OF
THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS.
MR. DAVIDE. To avoid any further complication, I would agree to delete
JUDICIARY.
MR. DAVIDE. So, on line 5, the only amendment would consist of the
following: after the word as, insert MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS OR THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee prefer to throw this to the body?
MR. REGALADO. We prefer that we submit it to the body.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide on page 9, line 5, to include these two offices: the
constitutional
commissions and the office of the Ombudsman, please raise their hand.
Those against the proposed amendment will please raise their hand. (Few
approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, we are almost at the end of our long journey.
I ask for continued patience on the part of everyone. We are now on Section
20.
We have consolidated all the amendments for presentation by one person;
and that is, Commissioner Sarmiento. Will the Chair recognize him please?
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO. I humbly propose an amendment to the proposed resolution
of my Committee and this is on page 9, Section 20, line 7, which is to delete
the
words or international agreement. May I briefly explain.
First, Article VII of the 1935 Constitution does not mention international
agreement. Second, the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties states
that a
treaty is an international agreement. Third, the very source of this provision,
the United States Constitution, does not speak of international agreement;
it only speaks of treaties. So with that brief explanation, may I ask the
Committee to consider our amendment.
Commissioners Guingona, Villacorta and Aquino are supportive of this
amendment.
MR. CONCEPCION. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you, Madam President.

International agreements can become valid and effective upon ratification of
a designated number of parties to the agreement. But what we can say here
is
that it shall not be valid and effective as regards the Philippines. For
instance, there are international agreements with 150 parties and there is a
provision generally requiring say, 50, to ratify the agreement in order to be
valid; then only those who ratified it will be bound. Ratification is always
necessary in order that the agreement will be valid and binding.
MR SARMIENTO. Do I take it to mean that international agreements should be
retained in this provision?
MR. CONCEPCION. Yes. But when we say shall not be valid and effective, we
say AS REGARDS THE PHILIPPINES.
MR. SARMIENTO. So, the Commissioner is for the inclusion of the words AS
REGARDS THE PHILIPPINES?
MR. CONCEPCION. Yes No agreement will be valid unless the Philippines
ratifies it.
MR. SARMIENTO. So may I know the final position of the Committee with
respect to my amendment by deletion?
MR. CONCEPCION. I would say No treaty or international agreement shall be
valid and effective AS REGARDS THE PHILIPPINES unless concurred in by at
least
two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
MR. SARMIENTO. If that is the position of the Chief Justice who is an expert on
international law . . .
MR. CONCEPCION. I am not an expert.
MR. SARMIENTO. . . . then I will concede. I think Commissioner Aquino has
something to say about Section 20.
THE PRESIDENT. This particular amendment is withdrawn.
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, first I would like a clarification from the
Committee. We have retained the words international agreement which I
think is
the correct judgment on the matter because an international agreement is

different from a treaty. A treaty is a contract between parties which is in the
nature of international agreement and also a municipal law in the sense that
the people are bound. So there is a conceptual difference. However, I would
like to be clarified if the international agreements include executive
agreements.
MR. CONCEPCION. That depends upon the parties. All parties to these
international negotiations stipulate the conditions which are necessary for
the
agreement or whatever it may be to become valid or effective as regards the
parties.
MS. AQUINO. Would that depend on the parties or would that depend on the
nature of the executive agreement? According to common usage, there are
two types
of executive agreement: one is purely proceeding from an executive act
which affects external relations independent of the legislative and the other
is an
executive act in pursuance of legislative authorization. The first kind might
take the form of just conventions or exchanges of notes or protocol while the
other, which would be pursuant to the legislative authorization, may be in
the nature of commercial agreements.
MR. CONCEPCION. Executive agreements are generally made to implement a
treaty already enforced or to determine the details for the implementation of
the
treaty. We are speaking of executive agreements, not international
agreements.
MS. AQUINO. I am in full agreement with that, except that it does not cover
the first kind of executive agreement which is just protocol or an exchange of
notes and this would be in the nature of reinforcement of claims of a citizen
against a country, for example.
MR. CONCEPCION. The Commissioner is free to require ratification for validity
insofar as the Philippines is concerned.
MS. AQUINO. It is my humble submission that we should provide, unless the
Committee explains to us otherwise, an explicit proviso which would except
executive agreements from the requirement of concurrence of two-thirds of
the Members of the Senate. Unless I am enlightened by the Committee I
propose
that tentatively, the sentence should read. No treaty or international
agreement EXCEPT EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS shall be valid and effective.
FR. BERNAS. I wonder if a quotation from the Supreme Court decision might
help clarify this:
The right of the executive to enter into binding agreements without the
necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long
usage.
From the earliest days of our history, we have entered into executive
agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations,
most favored
nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and
navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of this
has
never been seriously questioned by our Courts.
Agreements with respect to the registration of trademarks have been
concluded by the executive of various countries under the Act of Congress of
March 3,
1881 (21 Stat. 502) . . . International agreements involving political issues or
changes of national policy and those involving international agreements of
a permanent character usually take the form of treaties. But international
agreements embodying adjustments of detail, carrying out well established
national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more
or less temporary nature usually take the form of executive agreements.
MR. ROMULO. Is the Commissioner, therefore, excluding the executive
agreements?
FR. BERNAS. What we are referring to, therefore, when we say international
agreements which need concurrence by at least two-thirds are those which
are
permanent in nature.
MS. AQUINO. And it may include commercial agreements which are executive
agreements essentially but which are proceeding from the authorization of
Congress. If that is our understanding, then I am willing to withdraw that
amendment.
FR. BERNAS. If it is with prior authorization of Congress, then it does not need
subsequent concurrence by Congress.
MS. AQUINO. In that case, I am withdrawing my amendment.
MR. TINGSON. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Aquino satisfied?
MS. AQUINO. Yes. There is already an agreement among us on the definition

of executive agreements and that would make necessary any explicit
proviso on
the matter.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona is recognized first because he has
been standing there earlier.
MR. GUINGONA. I am not clear as to the meaning of executive agreements
because I heard that these executive agreements must rely on treaties. In
other
words, there must first be treaties.
MR. CONCEPCION. No, I was speaking about the common use, as executive
agreements being the implementation of treaties, details of which do not
affect the
sovereignty of the State.
MR. GUINGONA. But what about the matter of permanence, Madam
President? Would 99 years be considered permanent? What would be the
measure of permanency? I
do not conceive of a treaty that is going to be forever, so there must be
some kind of a time limit.
MR. CONCEPCION. I suppose the Commissioners question is whether this
type of agreement should be included in a provision of the Constitution
requiring the
concurrence of Congress.
MR. GUINGONA. It depends on the concept of the executive agreement of
which I am not clear. If the executive agreement partakes of the nature of a
treaty,
then it should also be included.
MR. CONCEPCION. Whether it partakes or not of the nature of a treaty, it is
within the power of the Constitutional Commission to require that.
MR. GUINGONA. Yes. That is why I am trying to clarify whether the words
international agreements would include executive agreements.
MR. CONCEPCION. No, not necessarily; generally no.
MR. TINGSON. Madam President.

MR. TINGSON. If the Floor Leader would allow me, I have only one short
question.
MR. ROMULO. I wish to be recognized first. I have only one question. Do we
take it, therefore, that as far as the Committee is concerned, the term
international agreements does not include the term executive
agreements as read by the Commissioner in that text?
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. ROMULO. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson may now proceed.
MR. TINGSON. Thank you. Madam President, I am just dying to ask the Chief
Justice because I need to know this.
Is the Republic of the Philippines-United States Military Bases Treaty under
the category of a treaty or an international agreement?
MR. CONCEPCION. I have not read the agreement on bases so I am in no
position to answer the Commissioners question.
MR. TINGSON. I ask this because I understand that that military bases treaty
with the United States was fully ratified by the Congress of the Philippines
but not by the Senate of the United States. I am just wondering what its
category is.
MR. CONCEPCION. That is my impression. So insofar as the United States is
concerned, it is an executive agreement, but insofar as we are concerned, it
is a
treaty.
MR. TINGSON. I see. Thank you.
MR. SUMULONG. May I say a few words on that. The military bases
agreement is an agreement entered into by the President of the United
States duly
authorized by the Congress of the United States and the President of the
Philippines. So it has the nature of a treaty. It is not an executive agreement.
When it was signed by President Roxas, although it was no longer necessary

he still referred it to the Philippine Senate because he thought that the
matter
was of such importance that he wanted that not only himself should be
bound by the agreement but also the Members of the Philippine Senate.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, we now come to the final amendment to this
Article. I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be recognized.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, this is in connection with the matter that
we have just discussed and particularly with respect to the text that
Commissioner Bernas read. May I just ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona may proceed.
MR. GUINGONA. Is the text that Commissioner Bernas read from an American
case?
FR. BERNAS. The citation I read is from page 936, Philippine Reports, 1955.
FR. BERNAS. On other matters touching also on executive agreements, the
case of Gonzales vs. Hechanova, page 230, 9 SCRA, 1963 would also be
helpful.
MR. AZCUNA. Madam President.
MR. AZCUNA. I would like to propose what I hope is the final amendment to
Section 21, page 9, lines 10 to 13, which is to delete the whole Section 21 on
the ground that it is already covered by the report of the Committee on the
Legislative, Section 26 (1) thereof, containing substantially the same words,
which has already been amended by the Commission. I am referring to the
submission by the President to the Congress of a budget of receipts and
expenditures.
FR. BERNAS. Will the Commissioner repeat it, please?
MR. AZCUNA. I propose to delete the whole of Section 21 because it is
already contained in Section 26, the provision on the legislative power. As
amended
Section 26 (1) reads:
The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the
opening of each regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations
bill, a
budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from
existing and proposed revenue measures. The Congress may not increase
the
appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the
Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of
preparation of
the budget shall be prescribed by law.
MR. SUMULONG. We will note that Section 21 simply refers to the submission
by the President of the budget within fifteen days of the opening of the
regular
session. We precisely limited it to the act of submission of the budget by the
President. We did not continue anymore because we knew that in the
committee
report to be prepared by the Committee on the Legislative, the details about
this budget of receipts and expenditures will be discussed.
MR. REGALADO. May I add to that. Commissioner Davide is also a member of
the Committee on the Executive. That was precisely the agreement, that this
duty
of the President in the first sentence will be retained in the provision on
the executive, then the provision on the legislative will take care of all
other details after this.
MR. DAVIDE. Then, we can leave it to the Committee on Style, but with the
consent of the Commission, we will change fifteen in Section 21 to THIRTY.
We
use THIRTY days instead of fifteen. So it will be harmonized with Section
25. So the amendment would only be the change of the word fifteen to
THIRTY
on line 10 of page 9, and then the Committee on Style will later harmonize
the two provisions.
THE PRESIDENT. Does the Chair understand that Commissioner Azcuna is not
insisting on the deletion of Section 21?
MR. AZCUNA. Madam President, I am not insisting.
THE PRESIDENT. So, the change will be from fifteen to THIRTY days?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts.
Is there any objection?

MR. MONSOD. May I also add that the language should be harmonized
because we specifically made changes in this section of the Article on the
Legislative.
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, that would be harmonized, and I so move that it be
harmonized with Section 25 of the Article on the Legislative because Section
25, as
stated, had already undergone amendments on the floor, especially the
amendments of Commissioners Natividad and Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT. So, is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the amendment is approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you, Madam President; I also thank the Acting Floor
Leader.
There are just two points I would like to clear up. With the permission of the
Chairman of our Committee, I would just like to formally record the
reservation of the Committee to rearrange the presentation of the approved
sections to achieve proper sequence so that we will not be confused when
we will
have a clean draft, probably and hopefully, by tomorrow.
Second, Madam President, in view of the intense interest shown by the
searching questions of Commissioners Nolledo, Foz, de los Reyes and
Monsod on Section
4, paragraph 2, regarding the canvass of votes for the President and VicePresident, I found it only fair to them to supplement my answer by inserting
in
the record the written explanation of the authors of Resolution No. 198;
namely, myself, Commissioners Ople and Natividad on this particular section
to
complete our record of the proceedings. **
May I be permitted, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT. We will just insert them in the Record.

MR. MONSOD. May we reserve the right to read that and also present
whatever we feel is necessary to amplify or clarify certain points?
THE PRESIDENT. Yes. So please have copies of that distributed.
MR. MAAMBONG. I will give Commissioner Monsod a copy of it immediately.
But I would just like to in form the Commission that the points in this report
which we submitted to the Committee on June 29, 1986 have already been
taken up by the Committee.
My only purpose is to inform those who are interested on how this particular
Section 4, paragraph 2 was formulated, in order to complete their picture of
the whole situation.
I will gladly give Commissioner Monsod a copy for his comment.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other proponent?
MR. ROMULO. Yes, Commissioner Bengzon would like to be recognized.
MR. BENGZON. Madam President, if the body would agree, and subject to the
comments and observations made by Commissioner Maambong, I move that
we vote on
the Article on the Executive on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection?
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I suggest that it would be better that we vote
on the resolution on Second Reading after we are given a consolidated and
clean
copy tomorrow.
MR. BENGZON. In that case, Madam President, permit me to state that
tomorrow, we have several matters before us. We can vote on Third Reading
on the
Accountability of Public Officers at the first hour if we have enough number.
We can continue the committee report on the Legislative, just on the party
list system, the multisectoral system and the terms of the office which are
the only matters left. After that we can proceed to the sponsorship and
debate
on the report of the Committee on Social Justice.
If we can have all these and the clean copy of the committee report on the
executive distributed to us within the morning, then we can vote on Second
Reading before we recess at noon. So, in accordance with that, Madam
President, I move for the adjournment until tomorrow.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Jamir would like to be
recognized to make a reservation before we go to Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR. Madam President, yesterday I proposed an amendment on
Section 4. But because of Commissioner Monsods proposal to reconsider the
decision on
that total prohibition on the President from running for reelections
Commissioner Regalado suggested that I withdraw my amendment for the
time being.
Since I have not heard from Commissioner Monsod whether or not he will
pursue his amendment, I am ready to ask for a reconsideration of my motion.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I was informed that a motion for
reconsideration has to be filed within one day. So if the Commissioner will
recall, I have
asked the Chairs advice on how we could proceed with that but it seems it
could only be done if we suspend the Rules. Perhaps that can be taken up at
another time rather than today because it would need a suspension of the
Rules.
THE PRESIDENT. The Committee on Rules or the Steering Committee is the
only one that can suspend the Rules; is that correct?
MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Jamir insist on his proposed amendment?
MR. JAMIR. My amendment is to insert a new paragraph between the first and
second paragraphs of Section 4 of the Committees draft. It reads: NO
PERSON WHO
HAS SERVED MORE THAN THREE YEARS AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE QUALIFIED

FOR ELECTION TO THE SAME OFFICE AT ANY TIME.
May I explain my purpose, Madam President. If the President dies, let us say
two years after assuming office, and the Vice-President succeeds him, the
Vice-President will be serving for more than three years, in which case he will
not be eligible for election to the same office. That is to take care of a
seeming vacuum with respect to the qualification of the Vice-President to run
for election for a second time, if he succeeds in the office of the
presidency.
MR. UKA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA. If by that amendment, we cannot act on it without suspending the
Rules, I move that we suspend the Rules and act on that maana por la
maana.
MR. JAMIR. I do not think we have to suspend the Rules. May we know from
the Floor Leader.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, just for clarification, I think it is only in the
case of my intended request for reconsideration where the Rules has to be
suspended but not in the case of the amendment at hand.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, in fairness to the proponent of the
amendment, perhaps everyone will be in a better frame of mind to consider
it objectively
if we take it up tomorrow.
MR. JAMIR. I have no objection, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO. I move for the adjournment of the session.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is adjourned until tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
It was 7:39 p.m.
Footnotes:
* See Appendix.
** See Appendix.
R.C.C. NO. 45
Friday, August 1, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Bernardo M. Villegas.
PRAYER
MR. VILLEGAS: God Almighty, You created us so that we may perfect
ourselves mainly through human work. Through our first parents, You
commanded us to
exercise dominion over the whole earth. Work, far from being a punishment,
has always been part of our human nature. Work whether manual or
intellectual
is the main instrument You have given us for our personal sanctification.
Lord, thank You for giving us during these past few weeks the opportunity to
work with unusual vigor. We are edified to see among our colleagues in the
Commission outstanding examples of diligence, thoroughness, patience,
perseverance, attention to details and an abhorrence for sloppiness and
mediocrity in
professional work. May the lessons we are learning from them last for the
rest of our lives and may we spread these exemplary attitudes to work far
and
wide among our fellow Filipinos.
Through the work we have been performing in writing a Constitution for our
people, we want to participate in Your continuing task of creation by helping
in
a small way to build a just and humane society. We want this work to give
glory to You and to serve our people, especially those who are poor and
defenseless. Through a preferential concern for the poor, let us fulfill the new
commandment which Your only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, brought to us. Let
us love in deeds, and not just in words. Let us learn once and for all that love,
more than being an emotional or sentimental feeling, is an act of the
will by which we seek the good of others even at our own expense. May we
continuously exercise this act of the will in good and bad times, in joy and in
pain.
All these we ask You through Your Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: reading:
Abubakar
Present*
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Aquino
Present
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present
Ople
Present*
Bengzon
Present*
Padilla
Present*
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present
Bernas
Present
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present*
Reyes de los
Present
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present*
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present*
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present*
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present
Tadeo
Present
Guingona
Present
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
The Secretariat is in receipt of official advice of absence of Commissioner

Treas.
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
last session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we approve the Journal of the last
session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Niceto Z. Limpiedo, Municipal Mayor of Naval, Leyte,

transmitting Resolution Nos. 72 to 76, series of 1986, of the Sangguniang
Bayan of
Naval, requesting inclusion of provisions in the Constitution providing for
salaries, insurance, retirement and leave benefits for elective municipal
officials.
Letter from Mr. Magdaleno Espirito, Jr., of School Volunteer Program
(Philippines) Unit 823, Building 8, UP Bliss, Diliman, Quezon City, requesting
inclusion of provisions in the Constitution providing for free and compulsory
elementary and secondary education and recognizing the role of private
colleges and universities in tertiary education by granting annual budgetary
support.
Telegram from Mr. Anacleto O. Ranises of Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City,
requesting the Commission to give the Visaya-Cebuano language equal
treatment with
Tagalog in the Constitution.
Letter from former MP Princess Potri Ali Pacasum of 26 Marunong, Central
District, Diliman, Quezon City, urging the Constitutional Commission to
include in
the Constitution a provision granting autonomy to the Bangsa Moro Nation of
the South and the Cordillera people of the North.
Communication from the Movement for a Filipino Federal Republic, signed by
Mr. Samuel C. Occena, 31 Tionko Avenue, Davao City, submitting draft
articles
for a federal system of government.

Principles.
Letter from the Southern Philippine Muslim Youth Association, c/o P.O. Box
5452, Iligan City, signed by Sultan Daud P. Salsal, requesting the
Constitutional Commission to consider the full implementation of the Bangsa
Moro Autonomous Government within the framework of the national
sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Philippines.
Letter from Mr. Ramon G. Santillan, President of the Tabaco Senior Citizens,
Inc., 303 Ziga Avenue, Tabaco, Albay, submitting his associations Resolution
No. 86-B-3, proposing a provision for a truly socialized program for the
neglected and forgotten elders in the form of increased pension and
government
subsidized health care.
Letter from Ms. Emma Susan I. Ortega of the Humanist Party, P.O. Box 5088,
Makati, Metro Manila, applauding the inclusion of the article that gives equal
rights to women in all fields and expressing opinions on the issue of
legalizing abortion and on the legalization of divorce.
Letter from Sister Leontina Castillo, OSA and Brother Rafael Donato, FSC,
Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines, 214 N. Domingo
Street, Quezon City, urging the Constitutional Commission to adopt measures
on (1) Philippines sans foreign military bases and nuclear plants and arms,
(2)
genuine land reform, (3) nationalist agricultural development and
industrialization, (4) free and nationalist education, (5) national language, (6)
just
labor laws, and (7) right of tribal Filipinos.

Letter from the Catholic Womens League, Archdiocese of Manila, signed by
its President, Susana P. Africa, and the other officers and members of the
board
of directors, expressing appreciation and support for the inclusion in the
Constitution provisions on human rights of unborn children from the moment
of
conception and on the teaching of religion in public elementary and
secondary schools under certain conditions.
Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Ponciano L. Bennagen, transmitting
a letter from the Solidarity of Humane Organization for Equality and
Sovereignty
(SHOES) of Marikina, submitting various proposals for the consideration of
the Constitutional Commission.
Letter from Mr. Miguel Ll. Moreno, transmitting Resolution No. 24, series of
1986, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Taal, Batangas, informing the
Constitutional
Commission of the objection of the Sangguniang Bayan of Taal to the
scrapping of the death penalty from the Penal Code.
CONSIDERATION OF
(Article on the Executive) *
Continuation
MR. RAMA: Up for consideration this morning is the pending last amendment
to the Article on the Executive, Committee Report No. 26. This-is the
amendment
that was proposed by Commissioner Jamir. So, in order to wind up our job on
this Article on the Executive, I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
motion is approved.
May we request the honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on
the Executive to please occupy the front table.
At this juncture, may we acknowledge the presence this morning of students
from Maryknoll College, Ateneo de Manila, St. Scholastica College, Philippine
Normal College, St. Bridgets (Quezon City) and St. Bridgets (Batangas). We
thank you, specially our young people, for expressing interest in our
deliberations.
(Applause)
Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
I will now restate my proposed amendment to insert a paragraph between
the first and second paragraphs of Section 4 to read as follows: NO PERSON
WHO HAS
SERVED MORE THAN THREE YEARS AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE QUALIFIED FOR
ELECTION TO THE SAME OFFICE AT ANY TIME.
MR. SUMULONG: Will the proponent explain why he added the phrase AT
ANY TIME?
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, under our approved provision on the President,
we will have no reelection the President is not entitled to any reelection.
That is why in this proposal, I placed the words AT ANY TIME to accord with
that provision.
MR. REGALADO: May I inform Commissioner Jamir that Commissioner Monsod
announced yesterday that he is toying with the idea of seeking a suspension
of the
Rules to enable a proposed motion for reconsideration of the provision that
the President cannot run for immediate reelection, the word immediate
having
been eliminated. That is why I mentioned to the proponent that if that
contingency comes to pass, this portion of his proposed amendment AT ANY
TIME may
be affected.
MR. JAMIR: Should that contingency arise, I will have no objection in deleting
the phrase AT ANY TIME in order to coincide with the reconsideration, if
ever that comes.
MR. REGALADO: That will be replaced by the phrase IN THE NEXT
SUCCEEDING ELECTION.
MR. JAMIR: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, is it the position of the Committee that we
defer this to some other time until we have taken up the manifestations of
Commissioner Monsod?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, anyway, Commissioner Jamir has
accepted the condition that in the event the motion for reconsideration of
Commissioner
Monsod prospers, the phrase AT ANY TIME will merely be replaced with the
phrase IN THE NEXT SUCCEEDING ELECTION, which was in his original
proposal.
MR. JAMIR: I affirm that, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: So, I think we can consider this.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suggests that a caucus be held by the
Commissioners on this important point that has been raised by
Commissioner Monsod. We will
advise the Commissioners when this caucus will take place, because there
may be other matters to be taken that will be affected by any decision the
body
would take on this issue.
So, can we call on that, Commissioner Jamir, at some later time?

MR. JAMIR: Yes, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: But, Madam President, the Committee accepts in principle
this proposed amendment, subject to these contingencies.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, subject to the reservations of the Committee
and Commissioner Jamir, I move that we close the period of amendments on
this
Article on the Executive, Committee Report No. 26.
amendments on this Article on the Executive?
MR. MONSOD: May I just make a clarification with regard to the phrase, the
vote of the majority of all Members of Congress. It is my understanding that
this applies in all of those cases except in the exception we approved
yesterday on the declaration of martial law. It would mean Congress or the
Members
of both Houses voting separately. Is that the understanding, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT: Can we have the reaction from the Committee?
FR. BERNAS: Except in the cases where we specifically said that they will be
voting jointly.
MR. MONSOD: Which is only one case, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Two.
MR. MONSOD: No, one case only.
FR. BERNAS: Two.
MR. MONSOD: Which is the other one?
FR. BERNAS: The concurrence in martial law, the revocation of martial law
and the extension of martial law.
MR. MONSOD: I agree.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is a motion that we close the period of
amendments on the Article on the Executive.
amendments on Proposed Resolution No. 517 on the Article on the
Executive? (Silence) The
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the voting on Second Reading on the Article on
the Executive will have to be deferred until we shall have received our copies
of
the Article, as amended, so that everybody would know what he is voting for.
THE PRESIDENT: What is our next business?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the other business was supposed to have been
the Third Reading on the Article on Accountability of Public Officers, but the
Chairman of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers has just told
me that he is not ready to present the Article for Third Reading.
I move that we take up for consideration the pending matter of party list and
sectoral representation in the Article on the Legislative. I understand that
the proponents of these two systems have come to an agreement.
It was 10:13 a.m.
MR. RAMA: We have an item under the Unfinished Business which has been
pending for a long time now-I am referring to the motion for reconsideration
of our
vote on the Article on Amendment to the Constitution which was filed by
Commissioner Gascon. May I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized

to present
his motion for reconsideration for final action by this body.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
RECONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF
(Article on Amendments or Revisions)**
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President.
This is with regard to Proposed Resolution No. 322 which is now pending for
Third Reading. Before we go into Third Reading of the said resolution, I would
like to ask the body to reconsider our decision on Second Reading with
regard to Section 2 of the Article on Amendment or Revision which reads:
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12 percent of the total
number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three percent of the registered voters thereof. No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following
the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter.
My motion for reconsideration is based on my appeal to the body that we
delete the last phrase after the word Constitution which says: nor oftener
than
once every five years thereafter, which would actually mean that the people
can exercise initiative only every five years as far as presenting amendments
to the Constitution is concerned.
The Philippines is a republican state and sovereignty resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them. It is in recognition of this
principle that we have sought to enshrine in the new Constitution a provision
for amendment of the Constitution by initiative of the people.
The provision as it stands now, however, limits such power of the people by
prescribing a five-year limit to every amendment that may be brought
through
initiative, despite the difficult task of gathering at least three percent of the
voters in every legislative district.
There are various reasons why I am seeking for a reconsideration of the

provision we just approved. Firstly, by enshrining the initiative process in the
Constitution, we have recognized the supreme will of the people over the
legislature composed only of elected representatives. We have provided a
vehicle
for amending the Constitution by the people themselves who have firsthand
knowledge of the problems we face.
Secondly, we did not see it fit to limit the power of the legislature, composed
of not more than 250 elected representatives, to propose amendments, but
instead chose to limit amendments by initiative of the people which would be
supported by at least 12 percent of the qualified voters, or roughly 3.2
million voters. This contradicts the principle that sovereignty resides in the
people.
Lastly, as I have said earlier, the three-percent requirement for every
legislative district can serve as the necessary stopper for any abuse of the
power
of amendment by initiative. It is not an easy task to gather signatures of at
least three percent of the voters in every district. Therefore, the fear that
this will be abused is not a real fear.
I therefore plead that this body reconsider our position if we are really
determined to provide the people with this reserve power and we aim to
establish
a Constitution that will truly embody the ideals and aspirations of the people.
If ours is truly a republican government, we should not create structures
that would restrict, hamper, or impair the effective exercise of the people of
their power to initiate amendments to the Constitution, thereby ensuring the
atmosphere for a genuine, popular democracy.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are Commissioner Gascons amendments related to Section
2?
MR. GASCON: Yes, Madam President. They are on the last two lines of Section
2 which read: nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask the Secretary-General to please read the
provisions of Section 2 as already approved.
SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve
percent of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters thereof.
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five
years thereafter.
The National Assembly shall by law provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from the Chairman of the Committee on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
MR. SUAREZ: This matter had already been exhaustively discussed when we
decided to approve this particular section. So we would like to leave it to the
body to appreciate this development in connection with the filing of the
motion for reconsideration seeking the deletion of this sentence as presented
by
Commissioner Gascon.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, before we take a vote, may I ask that
Commissioner Bernas be recognized to ask the proponent of the amendment
some questions?
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President.
All the reasons cited by the Gentleman for deleting the last phrase nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter apply to the entire sentence.
May I
know why he is asking for the deletion only of the last phrase?
MR. GASCON: During our deliberations, we discussed certain parameters
whereby this reserve power could be implemented and for which reason we
have agreed
to allow a 12- and three-percentage parameter for each legislative district.
Although originally I had already presented my position that this should have
been less strict, I have agreed to the position of the majority. However, the
last phrase nor oftener than once every five years thereafter would
actually imply that the people can only begin the practice of this initiative
after five years from now, assuming that this Constitution is ratified, to
which I agree because we have to give the Constitution time to be put into
practice. But after that it will only be practiced every five years. That means
we would only have one initiative every five years at the most. I feel this is
too much of a restriction on the people as far as amending the Constitution
is concerned.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I am supporting the amendment, but what I
am really asking is why the proponent is not supporting more concessions.
MR. GASCON: This was in agreement with the Committee Chairman. I tried to
ask for more concessions but he was only willing to allow me to present my
position on this matter because the issue of percentages has already been
thoroughly discussed.
FR. BERNAS: I am not referring to the percentages Madam President, I am
just referring to the entire sentence.
MR. GASCON: It is because I feel that we need to give this Constitution, at
least, five years to be put into practice. If we allow amendments immediately
after the ratification, then we will not be able to put the Constitution into
practice which is why I agree with the basic principle that we should allow
this Constitution to be integrated in the whole political life of the people
whereby the people will have a greater understanding of the Constitution
and,
thereby, will be able to present amendments to it.
FR. BERNAS: But the legislature will be able to propose the amendments
even during the first five years or the like.
MR. GASCON: Yes, that is right.
FR. BERNAS: So, to that extent the legislature is still superior to the people.
MR. GASCON: That is true.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I am the original author of this amendment by initiative. To
complete the record, when this matter was under debate in the Committee
on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions, some fears were expressed that
although the requirements for proposing constitutional amendments through
initiative
had been raised through a rigorous standard 12 percent of the total
number of votes nationwide, not less than three percent in every legislative
district
or for that matter, province or city there could be too frequent exercise of
this power of initiative to a degree that the government could not
anticipate the budgetary requirements needed for such exercises.
A referendum or a plebiscite costs at least P97 million at present prices. And
also the fear was expressed then, I think by General Crispin de Castro, that
we could be exacerbating the political process by holding too many
referenda, to a degree that this can affect the stability of the government
and district
government from its normal course of action. However, on further reflection,
I think, I am now prepared to support the proposed amendment of
Commissioner
Gascon, if only to insure that the power of initiative will, in no way, be inferior
to the powers of Congress in constituting themselves into a constituent
assembly or in calling a national convention. I think it is prudent to let alone
for the first five years, provided that after that there will be no
restrictions on the number of times that this power can be invoked by the
people.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
REV. RIGOS: The argument I advanced when the question was discussed here
a few weeks ago, Madam President. was that while Congress was given the
opportunities to propose constitutional amendments without time limits, the
people were allowed to make the same proposals once every five years. I
think
the suggestion of Commissioner Gascon is to give substance to the sovereign
power of the people by eliminating the phrase every five years, so that the
idea is to give the same privilege to the people, the same privilege given to
the Congress in making constitutional amendments. I support the position of
Commissioner Gascon on this score.
MR. RAMA: Before we take a vote Madam President, one more question is
forthcoming from Commissioner Sarmiento.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Gascon we are here trying to achieve a
balance between stability and respect for popular will. Would the proponent
agree with
me that instead of completely leaving it to the people after the initial five
years, to make it after every three years? Will that be all right?
MR. GASCON: Actually, I personally feel that we should not place any time
limit any longer. However, when an initiative for referendum in the
Constitution
will be started by the people and submitted to the legislature for action. for
practical purposes, most probably the legislature will provide for the
mechanism for such a referendum during election. And in this case, it is not
synchronized with our proposed election. So for practical reasons, perhaps
everytime there is an election every three years the legislature would assign
a referendum on certain initiatives which the people have presented to the
legislature.
MR. SARMIENTO: In other words, the proponent wants to leave it to the
legislature
MR. GASCON: Because of the last statement which says, the National
Assembly shall by law provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
right, I
believe this would provide the National Assembly the freedom to allocate the
system whereby this referendum will be presented to the people.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Romulo would like to express his
views before we take a vote.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, as this body knows. I am very much for
initiative and referendum. In fact, as far as the original proposal for initiative
and
referendum for the legislature is concerned, I filed the first resolution.
However, I am against relaxing this provision for the moment because
amendment
by the people of a Constitution should be an extraordinary remedy. We are
now experimenting with this provision, so instead of going all the way, we
ought
to give it a chance to see how it will work. In the United States, their
experience is that when a direct ability of the people to amend the
Constitution
was first given in some of the states, for example, in California many
frivolous proposals were made.
We have to remember that once we get the required number of signatures,

the process begins, and that is an expensive process because we have to
have a
special referendum. Moreover, if the people really want an unlimited ability
or power to amend the Constitution, they can do it the first time. But as I
say, Madam President, this is an extraordinary remedy and amending the
Constitution is not a joke. Our Constitution is supposed to last for a long time.
In
the 200-odd years of the American Constitution it has been amended only 22
times. So. Madam President, I believe that what Commissioner Gascon wants
accomplished can be accomplished by the people once we have tested this
provision.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I agree with Commissioner Romulo that it is
not a joke to amend the Constitution, which is why we have set very strict
limitations. Twelve percent of the population is 3.2 million people at present,
and that is not an easy task for anyone to make. Considering the proposals
made by Commissioner Sarmiento, it would actually mean synchronization
with the elections, which will mean every three years in real terms. I think it
would be best that we consider it. Considering that the term of our election is
every three years, we can minimize costs as well.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, Commissioner Gascon is agreeable to
change the period from five to three years, as suggested by Commissioner
Sarmiento.
MR. GASCON: I was thinking that if we keep quiet on this and allow the
National Assembly to provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
right,
it will not contradict the Constitution. So, as a principle, we do not put any
limitations, but the National Assembly may provide for such real terms.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other speaker?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, one question from Commissioner Bacani.
BISHOP BACANI: Commissioner Gascon is working on the presupposition that
the power to legislate is delegated by the people to the legislators. Am I
correct?
MR. GASCON: That is correct.
BISHOP BACANI: Am I also correct in presuming that the one delegating

should not have less power than the one delegated?
MR. GASCON: That is right.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we have sufficiently debated on the issue, so,
may we take a vote?
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, point of inquiry, please.
MR. DE CASTRO: The Honorable Gascon has sought for a reconsideration. I
think the first voting should be whether to approve his motion for
reconsideration
or not. And the next voting should be on the amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall check the records with the Secretary-General.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I will clarify. I made a motion for
reconsideration and I presented my reasons. But my motion for
reconsideration has not yet
been acted upon. If the Chair would please allow. I would like to find out what
the sentiment of the body is with regard to my proposal.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the motion to reconsider our approval on
Second Reading of the amendment of Section 2, Proposed Resolution No.
322, please
raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 18 votes in favor and 14 against; the motion for
reconsideration is approved.
We are still in the period of amendments. May we ask Commissioner Gascon
to restate his proposed amendment.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, my proposal is to put a period (.) after the
word Constitution in the last sentence of Section 2, and to delete the
phrase
nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Monsod would like to speak

against the proposal.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, do we realize that whenever there is a
move to amend the Constitution, we have to have three million signatures,
that even
before the move is brought to the Congress, the Commission on Elections is
supposed to look into the sufficiency of the signatures, as well as the
proposal? This means that we have to authenticate and look into three
million signatures. I think what has been stated here is that it is expensive to
conduct a referendum. Even the first step is a very tedious and expensive
proposition, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Yes, I am aware of that.
MR. GASCON: But, as I said, democracy is never easy.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just respond to that. I believe that
this whole body is for democracy. I think what we are trying to do is to
balance
reserve power with the principle of representation.
Thank you.
SR. TAN: I regret to say that I would have to express my reservation over the
amendment on the basis that historically, at present we do not need more
trouble. Our situation is so tenuous; we have a new Constitution which is not
yet ratified. We need integration, unity, patience. We should not be opening
the floodgates again for our people to express their amendment. When we
say people, we do not mean that all our people are nationalists and good.
We have
also the antinationalists and the ones who want to make trouble.
I cannot approve this proposal, especially because there are no limits.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now? Those in favor of the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Gascon, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised
their hand.)
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I record my vote of abstention.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: May I be allowed to explain why I am abstaining?
MR. RODRIGO: I am abstaining because while I do not have any objection to
the proposed amendment, I am already on record as having opposed the use
of
initiative in amending the Constitution. I have no objection to initiative
and referendum themselves or even recall, but I cannot see the
mechanics
and the practicality of it. I would like to state, Madam President, that even
the UP Law Center, which advocates referendum and initiative for ordinary
legislation, does not advocate initiative for proposing amendments to the
Constitution, and this was a well-studied matter by the UP Law Center. The
Center
does not recommend initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution,
although it proposes initiative and referendum for ordinary legislation.
abstention; the amendment is lost.
It was 10:52 a.m.
Commissioner Garcia was on the floor before I suspended the session.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, thank you very much.
I submit to the Rules of the House; I withdraw my inquiry. I simply want to

make this comment that the power of the people, as I understand from our
discussions during the brief recess, can still be employed in the intervening
years on the Congress for the legislature to make the necessary
amendments.
In other words, it is not lost. That is the way we perceive it, although utilizing
the mechanism of synchronization of the referendum with the elections
every three years could have been, perhaps, a much more effective manner
of pursuing this. But we submit to the Rules of the House, and we thank you
very
much.
VOTING
The body will recall that we had reconsidered the approval of Proposed
Resolution No. 322 on Second Reading in order to open and receive this
particular
amendment. We will have to go back again and vote on Second Reading on
Resolution No. 322, the Article providing the procedure for the amendment of
the
Constitution.
Those in favor of approving Proposed Resolution No. 322 on Second Reading,
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I register my abstention.
APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 28 votes in favor, none against, and 1
abstention; Proposed Resolution No. 322, as amended, is approved on
Second Reading.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 322

ON THIRD READING
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution
No. 322.
motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 322 were distributed on July 10,
1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional
Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the proposed resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 322, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE
PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS.
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this bill, and the SecretaryGeneral will call the roll.
Abubakar
Brocka
Yes
Alonto
Calderon
Yes
Yes
Aquino
Yes
Castro de
Azcuna
Yes
Colayco
Bacani
Yes
Concepcion
Yes
Bengzon
Yes
Davide
Yes
Bennagen
Yes
Foz
Yes
Bernas
Yes
Garcia
Yes
Rosario Braid
Yes
Gascon
Yes
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote for one
minute.
COMMISSIONER GASCON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GASCON: Although this Article on Amendments and Revisions has very
good merits as it has now introduced a new way to amend, which is initiative
by the
people, I still feel that there are still too many limitations and restrictions on
the people. I have expressed this in my motion for reconsideration. In
view of the fact that I recognize and respect the decision of the majority, I
would like to abstain.
Guingona
Yes
Ople
Yes
Jamir
Yes
Padilla
Yes
Laurel
Yes
Muoz Palma
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Quesada
Yes
Maambong
Yes
Rama
Yes
Monsod
Yes
Regalado
Yes
Natividad
Yes
Reyes de los
Yes
Nieva
Yes
Rigos
Yes
Nolledo
Yes
Rodrigo
Yes
COMMISSIONER RODRIGO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I explain my vote for one minute?
Notwithstanding my misgivings about the practicableness of Section 2, that
is, using initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution, for reasons I
have already stated and which are on record, I find the other sections of this
Charter good and necessary. And so, I vote yes.
Romulo
Yes
Tan
Yes
Rosales
Yes
Tingson
Yes
Sarmiento
Treas
Suarez
Yes
Uka
Yes
Sumulong
Yes
Villacorta
Yes
Tadeo
Yes
Villegas
Yes
SECOND ROLL CALL

Abubakar
Laurel
Alonto
Sarmiento
Colayco
Treas
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 322
ON THIRD READING
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 41 votes in favor, none against and 1
abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 322 is approved on Third Reading.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that the Chairman of the Steering
Committee, Commissioner Bengzon, be recognized for an important
announcement.
CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO. 22
(Article on the Legislative/National Assembly)
Continuation
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Secretariat has promised to distribute

the clean copy of the Article on the Executive before twelve oclock. If this
happens, I would like to propose that we vote on Second Reading on the
Article on the Executive at the first hour this afternoon. I now request,
Madam
President, that the Article on the Legislative be discussed for a voting on the
compromise formula for the party list and multisectoral system. I request
that Commissioner Davide be called, together with the members of the
Committee on the Legislative.
motion is approved.
May we call on the Chairman and members of the Committee on the
Legislative to please occupy the front table.
MR. DAVIDE: Although it was announced earlier that the last matter to be
taken up on the Article on the Legislative is the party list and sectoral
representation, we would like to inform the Commissioners that the
Committee itself will propose amendments to Sections 3 and 6 to align the
terms of the
Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives with what the
Commission has decided on regarding the limitations for reelections.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: I would like to report that the proponents of sectoral
representation and of the party list system met to thoroughly discuss the
issues and
have arrived at a compromise formula.
On this first day of August 1986, we shall, hopefully, usher in a new chapter
in our national history by giving genuine power to our people in the
legislature. Commissioner Monsod will present to the Committee on the
Legislative the amendment to Section 5 which we have agreed upon. May we
request that
Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the proposal that we discussed and arrived
at consists of amending page 1, line 29 of the draft Article on the Legislative,
beginning with the word elected, and which reads as follows: THROUGH A
PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL
PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS AS PROVIDED BY , LAW. THE PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES
SHALL CONSTITUTE TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PROVIDED THAT FOR THE FIRST TWO TERMS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF
THIS CONSTITUTION TWENTY-FIVE OF THE SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE
FILLED BY SELECTION OR ELECTION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW FROM THE
LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR AND YOUTH SECTORS.
Madam President, there were seven Commissioners who were involved in
these discussions which took place a couple of days ago, and I would like to
mention
their names so that they can indicate if they are still in full accord with this
provision and could consider themselves coauthors of this amendment.
In addition to Commissioner Villacorta and this representation, we have
Commissioners Bernas, Bennagen, Gascon, Garcia, Davide, Bengzon, Nieva,
Azcuna,
Bacani, Rigos, Tan, Suarez, Sarmiento, Ople, Tingson, Guingona, Foz, Romulo,
Uka, Rosario Braid and Villegas.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I am in full accord with the proposal read
by Commissioner Monsod, but I would like to have the opportunity to ask a
clarificatory question later.
MR. TADEO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Gusto ko lamang magpahayag ng susog o amendment by
deletion. Ngunit bago ko ito sabihin, kinausap ko si Commissioner Monsod
bago ito
pinag-usapan, bago kami umuwi. Ang sabi ko sa kanya, ako bilang kinatawan
ng mga dukha siguro ang nasa posisyon na dapat maging bahagi ng
pagtalakay nito,
at sumagot naman siya sa akin na hindi ito tatalakayin, na ang kinatawan ng
magbubukid ay wala. Nagkataon lamang na mayroon akong nasagutang
pagsasalita sa
Institute of Social Truth and Action na noon pang Abril ay nasagutan ko na,
ngunit nang dumating ako ay naayos na ito. Ang akin lamang susog o
amendment by
deletion ay ang pag-aalis ng that for the first two terms after the ratification
of this Constitution. Bakit naman natin bibigyan ng limit? Kung gagawa
tayo ng isang Saligang Batas dapat na natin itong paghusayin, lalo na kung
magbibigay ng kapangyarihang pampulitika sa mga dukha o marginalized
sector. Ang
totoo isa ito sa mga magpapabago ng political system ng Pilipinas sapagkat
ang Section 5 at Section 31 na tinalakay natin kangina ay totoong
napakahalaga,
sapagkat ang mga ito ang magbibigay ng kapangyarihang pampulitika o
political power sa marginalized sectors. Sinabi namin, hindi na mahalaga
kung ang porma
ng pamahalaan ay presidential o parliamentary. Ang pinakamahalaga ay ang
nilalaman o ang substance.
Ang Cory government ay iniakyat ng peoples power. Kaya kami naririto sa
Con-Com ay dahil sa peoples power nasa amin ang people, wala sa amin
ang power.
Ganito ito kahalaga.
Kaya ang gusto kong mangyari, dahil itoy totoong napakahalaga, gusto kong
talakayin ito ng apatnaput walong bumubuo ng Con-Com, sapagkat ito ang
magbibigay sa kanila ng kapangyarihang pampulitika. Kaya ako na ang
magsisimula ng pagtalakay sa isang freewheeling discussion. Gusto ko
munang banggitin
ang nakalagay sa ating Primer on Emerging Issues na ginamit natin sa mga
public hearings. Ang sabi sa page 3, last paragraph, III Manner of
Apportionment and Representation to the Legislature:
No. 1. What is the relevance of understanding apportionment and
representation?
The Legislature is supposed to implement or give flesh to the needs and
aspirations of the Filipino people.
Ganoon kahalaga ang National Assembly kayat napakahalaga noong Section
5 and Section 31 ng ating Constitution. Our experience, however, has shown
that
legislation has tended to benefit more the propertied class who constitutes a
small minority in our society than the impoverished majority, 70 percent of
whom live below the poverty line. This has come about because the rich
have managed to dominate and control the legislature, while the basic
sectors have
been left out of it. So, the critical question is, how do we ensure ample
representation of basic sectors in the legislature so that laws reflect their
needs and aspirations?
Ganoon kahalaga ang pag-uusapan natin sa araw na ito. Noong pinaguusapan natin ang term ng Presidente hanggang sa local official, gumamit
tayo halos ng
dalawang araw. Kaya sana ang pakiusap ko lamang, bigyan natin ito ng
pagkakataon. Naglagay tayo sa Preamble ng love. Naglagay tayo ng pagibig sa ating
Preamble na siyang bedrock o magtatakda ng direksiyon ng ating Saligang
Batas. At sinabi mismo ni Ambassador Emmanuel Pelaez na ang isa raw
magandang
nagawa natin sa Preamble, kung natatandaan ng naroroong Commissioners,
ay ang salitang love. Pero bigyan natin ng kahulugan ang salitang love.
Ano ang
ibig sabihin ng love? Hindi ko na kailangang banggitin pa sa inyo ang
Parable of the Good Samaritan sa Gospel of St. Luke, 10:30-37. Ngunit ang
ibibigay
ko na lamang sa inyo ay ang ibig sabihin ng love: Ang bagay na mahalaga
sa iyo na ibinigay mo sa iba o love is an act of giving.
Sa kalagayan ng ating political system noon, ang may hawak lang ng
tinatawag nating political system ay ang five percent na naghaharing uri.
Ano ang ibig
sabihin ng pag-ibig na inilagay natin sa ating Preamble? Kung ang 70 percent
ay walang political power, ang ibig sabihin ng pagkakalagay natin ng love
ay: yong five percent ay bibigyan mo ng political power, yong 70 percent ay
walang political power Yon ang ibig sabihin
Tamang-tama kangina ang sinabi ni Commissioner Villegas. Tayo raw ay
nilikha ng Diyos, ngunit hindi lamang tayo nilikha ng Diyos bilang kalarawan
Niya.
Nilikha tayo ng Diyos bilang cocreator Niya. Kaya gumagawa tayo ng isang
Saligang Batas that will reflect the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino
people. At winakasan ni Commissioner Villegas nang napakaliwanag. Sinabi
niya: Love in deeds; not in words.
Gusto kong banggitin dito ang I Corinthians 13:1. Ano ang sinasabi ng I
Corinthians na siyang pinakamahalaga dito?
Kung ako man ay makapagsasalitang tulad ng salita ng tao at ng wika ng
anghel, kung wala naman akong pag-ibig . . .
Ito ang kagandahan ng pagkakalagay natin ng love sa Preamble. Ang
kahalintulad daw ng Preamble kung walang pag-ibig ay isang tanso lamang
na tumutunog at
batingaw na umaalingawngaw. Ayaw kong ang Saligang Batas nating
gagawin ay isang batingaw na umaalingawngaw o isang tanso na tumutunog
lamang. Dapat itong
magkaroon ng substance. Sa ganitong kalagayan, napakahalaga ng araw
na ito para sa mga dukha, sa marginalized sectors.
Ngayon, gusto ko munang ipaliwanag ang party list sapagkat sinasabing
hindi raw ito nauunawaan. Kung natatandaan ng lahat, nagpadala si
Commissioner Monsod
noong July 22, 1986 ng Memo to the Constitutional Commissioners, Subject:
Explanatory Note on the Party List System na may dalawa lamang pahina.
Pero
nalulungkot ako, bakit naman sa dalawang pahinang itoy marami pa ring
nagsabi na hindi nila naiintindihan ang party list system? Bakit kapag ang
kapangyarihan ay ibibigay natin sa mga dukha, ang dalawang pahina ng
papel na ito ay tila hindi naman natin nabasa? Marahil dapat na ituwid
ninyo ako
kung ako ay mali.
Ngayon, sa ganitong kalagayan, gusto ko po lamang ipaliwanag ang party
list. Ang ibig sabihin nito, doon sa ilalim ng two-party system, kapag kumuha
ka ng
51 percent, iyong ibang partido ay wala nang nakuhang puwesto sa
legislature. Ang ibig sabihin ng party list system, makakuha ka lamang ng
2.5 percent ay
mayroon ka nang isang puwesto. Ang ibig sabihin, yong 49 percent ay
magkakaroon ng bahagi sa lehislatura at ito ay napakagandang bagay na
napalagay sa
ating Saligang Batas. Ngunit gusto ko itong palalimin. Ang 250 seats natin ay
ganito po: Ang 200 seats na legislative district ay nakalaan sa bawat 200,000
sa botante; yong 50 ay para sa party list. Ngunit ang tanong ditong malinaw
ay ganito: Yon bang pumasok sa legislative district, ilagay nating halimbawa
UNIDO, PDP-Laban, Liberal, Nacionalista, PNP ay hindi na kasali sa party
list? Hindi po. Kasama rin ang mga partidong ito. Nahawakan na nila ang 200
legislative seats, hahawakan pa rin nila ang party list itutulak nila ang
sectoral. Lalamunin din ng mga partidong ito ang sectoral. Yon po ang aming
tinututulan. Dodominahan din. Uulitin ko sa inyo sapagkat yon ang puntong
pinakamahalaga. Sa 250 seats, yong 200 ay legislative districts. Yon ay
kokontrolin ng ibat ibang partido. Ngunit ang mga partidong sasama sa
legislative district, papasok pa rin sa party list. Kaya malalamon din ito at
mawawala ang sektoral.
Mga kasama, tanggapin naman nating ang pulitikay logistics. Ang sabi nga
ng aking kababayang Commissioner Natividad, Jimmy, abay kapag sumama
ka sa
kandidato, milyon ang gagastusin mo. At anong gagastusin ng marginalized

sector? May pera ba sila para lumahok sa pulitika? Wala silang pera.
Kaya naman dito mga kasama, ang sinasabi lamang namin ay ito: Ang
hinihingi lamang ng marginalized sector sa inyo ay 10 percent sampung
porsiyento lamang
ng upuan sa 250 ang hinihingi ng marginalized sector. Uulitin ko 10
percent. Ihambing natin ito sa Constitution ng Egypt Article LXXXVII ng
Constitution ng Egypt, na ipinamigay rin sa inyo:
The law shall determine the constituencies into which the State shall be
divided and the number of elected members of the peoples assembly must
be at
least 350 persons, of which one-half at least must be workers and farmers
elected by direct, secret, public balloting.
Dito makikita namin. Dapat ang hiningi namin sa inyo ay 50 percent ng 250.
Pero alam na naman natin yong science of attainable, kayat ano ba yong
atin
lang puwedeng makamit? Alam namin na hindi namin puwedeng makamit,
bagamat gusto namin na 50 percent ng puwesto ay ibigay ninyo sa
marginalized sectors.
Ito ang gusto namin, na gusto ko lang marehistro, pero alam namin na hindi
natin ito makakamit. Kaya ang hinihingi lang namin sa inyo ay 10 percent, at
gusto kong malaman ng mga kabataang naririto ngayon na kasama sa
puwestong hinihingi ko na kayong kabataan ay magkaroon ng kinatawan sa
lehislatura. Kaya
ang dapat ninyong malaman ay kung ano ang ipinakikipaglaban ko; kasama
ngayon dito, dapat ninyong maintindihan na sa 25 na ito kasama kayong
kabataan na
magkaroon ng direktang upuan mismo sa lehislatura.
Kaya, sa ganitong mga kalagayan, mga kasama, napakahalaga nitong
tinatalakay natin sa araw na ito dahil kapag hindi natin nailagay dito na ang
marginalized
sector ay hindi natin binigyan ng kapangyarihang pampulitika, natatakot ako
sa hinaharap ng ating Saligang Batas na gagawin. Tungkol naman sa
Saligang
Batas ni Ginoong Marcos noong 1973, kahit na isang pretensiyon lamang ito
ni Ginoong Marcos, nagbigay siya sa youth ng anim na upuan; sa industrial
labor,
apat na upuan; sa agricultural labor, apat na upuan. Labing-apat na upuan
ang ibinigay sa marginalized sector ni Ginoong Marcos. Mayroon siyang
pagtatangka, labing-apat, at ang mapupuno lang na hinihingi ngayon sa
panahon ng peoples power, labing-isa, magiging 25. Sa ilalim ng
Proclamation No. 9
ni Ginang Cory Aquino, nakalagay doon ang marginalized sector sa Con-Com

kaya akoy napalagay dito, kinilala ng Proclamation No. 9. Kung initiative ng
mga
taoy naririto, iniakyat namin ang peoples power. Huwag nating kitlin, huwag
nating patayin ang initiative ng mga tao. Ang hinihingi ko lang, uulitin ko
ang aking amendment by deletion, alisin lang natin yong two terms. Bakit
natin lilimitahan yon sa marginalized sector? Alisin na natin yong provided
that for the first two terms after the ratification of this Constitution. Iyon
lang naman ang hinihingi ko. Bigyan na natin ng 25 upuan ang marginalized
sector. Uulitin ko, ang hinihingi ko lang, para yong pag-ibig ay maging
makabuluhan sa ating Saligang Batas, ay 10 porsiyento lang ng upuan ng
Lower
House. (Applause)
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may we remind those in the galleries that
they are not supposed to express approval or disapproval.
THE PRESIDENT: Many we request our guests to please refrain from any
outward manifestation of approval or disapproval on anything that is being
said here
in this session hall.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Monsod wishes to be
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, my dear and esteemed friend
Commissioner Tadeo mentioned at the beginning of his remarks that we had
an agreement and he
suggested that I reneged on it. I would like to say, Madam President, that our
agreement was that it would not be taken on the floor because at that time I
already gave up the idea of a compromise with those who had proposed this
party list system and sectoral representation. In fact, I was only invited to
that meeting and I did not want to attend the meeting, as I believe
Commissioner Villacorta and all the rest would say. Madam President, I regret
to say
that the assertions of my friend are incorrect, and I would like to put it on
record .
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Lerum wishes to be recognized, Madam
President.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I support the amendment offered by

Commissioner Tadeo. Let me explain how sectoral representation came
about. Organized labor
has always been asking for representation in all government bodies for the
welfare and protection of the workers. Because of the insistence of organized
labor for representation in government bodies, the government has been
giving in little by little. For example, in the Social Security System, we have
two
labor representatives; in the National Labor Relations Commission, labor has
three commissioners; in the Employees Compensation Commission, labor
has one
commissioner; in the National Manpower and Youth Council, labor has two
members; in the National Wages Council, it has two members; in the PagI.B.I.G., it
has two members.
At a time when we did not have a lawmaking body after martial law was
declared, there were tripartite conferences called by the President for the
purpose
of acting as a recommendatory body regarding settlement of labor and
management disputes. During the said conferences, labor had shown that it
can act with
maturity. As a result, in 1976, an amendment was introduced in the
Constitution providing for sectoral representation. In the Constitution that
was
approved, the number of sectors was not indicated. However, in the Election
Code of 1978, it provided for three sectors; namely, industrial labor,
agricultural labor and the youth. The agricultural labor was given four seats;
two for Luzon, one for the Visayas and one for Mindanao. The same is true
with the industrial labor sector. As far as the youth are concerned, they were
also given four seats: two for Luzon, one for Mindanao and one for the
Visayas, with the condition that there will be an additional two at large. And
so, the youth had six representatives plus four from the agricultural labor
sector and four from the industrial labor sector we had 14 seats.
In 1981, the Constitution was again amended. In the course of the
amendment, the labor representatives in the Batasang Pambansa proposed
that sectoral
representation be included as a permanent addition to the lawmaking body.
Again, in that Constitution which was approved in 1981, the number and the
name of the sectors were not indicated. However, in the Election Code that
was
approved before the 1984 election, there was really a definition of who will
constitute the sectors and how they will be appointed. Let me quote from
that
law that was passed in 1984. Under Section 27 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881,
the scope of the sectors has been defined as follows:
The agricultural labor sector covers all persons who personally and physically
till the land as their principal occupation. It includes agricultural
tenants and lessees, rural workers and farm employees, owner-cultivators,
settlers and small fishermen.
The industrial labor sector includes all nonagricultural workers and
employees.
The youth sector embraces persons not more than twenty-five years of age.
As to selection, it provides:
SECTION 28. Selection of sectoral representatives. Not later than twenty
days after the election of provincial, city or district representatives, the most
representative and generally recognized organizations or aggroupments of
members of the agricultural labor, industrial labor and youth sectors as
attested
to by the Ministers of Agrarian Reform and of Agriculture and Food, the
Minister of Labor and Employment, and the Ministers of Local Government
and of
Education, Culture and Sports, respectively, shall, in accordance with the
procedure of said organizations or aggroupments of members of the sector,
submit
to the President their respective nominees for each slot allotted for each
sector. The President shall appoint from among the nominees submitted by
the
aforementioned organizations or aggroupments the representatives of the
sector.
This came to pass because we had a difficulty in finding a solution on how
the sectoral representatives should be elected. Some regional assemblymen
had
suggested that the names of the nominees of the sectors should be included
in the ballot, but we objected to it because it would mean that people
outside
the sectors will be voting for them and, in effect, they will not become
representatives of the sectors but rather representatives of all those within
the
district who voted for them. So, it was rejected because of that difficulty.
Let me add to that. The sectors recommended that there should be a
separate list of voters who will vote exclusively for the sectoral
representatives. But
it was called to our attention that this is very hard to do, because since there
are three sectors, then there are three separate lists to be prepared by
the COMELEC and that will be an additional expense to the sectoral
representatives as well as the government. This recommendation was
abandoned, and it was
agreed that selection shall be by appointment.
I think there seemed to be some opposition to sectoral representation at that
time, because the representatives had been accused of being tools of the
President in view of the wrong impression that they had been appointed by
the President. As I have explained on this floor at the second meeting of this
Commission, the sectoral representatives in 1978 were elected as provided
for by the Election Code of 1978, and the Record of the Batasan will show
that
they were fiscalizers rather than blind followers of the President. There are
still some Members here from the interim Batasang Pambansa who can
testify to
the fact that the sectoral representatives have always acted independently
in this Commission. One cannot dictate to the sectoral representatives
because
they are responsible not to the President but to the sectors who have elected
or recommended them. Even if they have been appointed by the President,
they
are loyal to the sectors because they will be called to account by the sectors,
not by the President. And so, as sectoral representatives, we try to show
this Commission that we have been acting independently.
Just yesterday, I had to vote alone against six Members when the question of
sequestration was raised because we maintain that after the Constitution is
approved, there shall be no exemption from the operation of the Bill of
Rights. We had voted alone, but we are used to voting alone. As a matter of
fact,
if I may digress a moment, during our meetings with the President, at one
time, the President said: Let us hear Assemblyman Lerum first before we
outvote
him. But that is the role of the sectors in the Batasan. Contrary to what the
KMU has been saying time and time again that this representation is the
author of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 and 227, I said that is a lie. It is the KMU,
during a public hearing on May 28 at the Army and Navy Club, which said
that they are already in favor of the draft of the Committee on Labor which
this representation has been opposing.
Brother Tadeo submitted his arguments against the proposed amendment. I
am joining him in that respect and I am reminding this Commission of a
danger if
that amendment will be approved because, in effect, we are giving reserve
seats to the sectors and also to the party list. But if we approved his
amendment, after two elections, all the seats reserved to the sectors will
belong to the parties. The labor sectors, the youth sectors and the other
sectors which are contemplated in this proposal will no longer be
represented because the voting will be by all the voters in the district or
cities
concerned.
This is the reason we are against this amendment. This amendment does not
improve what has been proposed by the Committee which was a committee
amendment.
This party list system is intended to benefit only political parties that cannot
elect their own candidates. It is intended that even the seat allotted to
the labor and other sectors will be absorbed by them so that in the end there
will be no more sectoral representatives.
And so, I am opposed to that amendment and I am in favor of the
amendment to the amendment introduced by Commissioner Tadeo. And
before closing, because I
am going to use this argument also when it comes to an amendment on
sectoral representation in the Senate, let me read what the President
promised to the
labor sector on May 1, 1986, three months ago to this date. She said:
It is part of my minimum program of government to assure labors
meaningful participation in decision-making at all levels of our society. I shall
soon
appoint representatives of your unions in all policy making bodies of
government. I ask you to submit your recommendation in those positions.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I would like to state for the record that
I am in favor of giving reserve seats to the labor, peasant, urban poor, and
youth sectors. And I would like to state my reasons by quoting the following
words from a book entitled Ours To Share, by Jeremias U. Montemayor. He
said:
At the beginning, the land problem could have been purely economic insofar
as the tenants and the landlords were concerned. But as time passed on,
what was
originally an economic problem became a social problem as well. Since the

landlords had ample income, they were in a position to develop themselves
physically, intellectually and culturally. On the other hand, since the
peasants earnings were barely enough to keep them alive, they could not
afford the
education of their children. They were forced to keep their children as
helpers in the farm or to send them to the households of the landlords to
work as
servants and maids.
So, as the landlords and their children rose to social prominence, the
peasants and their issue lost practically all social standing. But the problem
did
not end there. Since the landlords accumulated great wealth and acquired
intellectual capability and social prominence, they logically became the
political
leaders of the country, while the peasants who remained destitute and
ignorant, counted almost nothing in the political life of the nation. Thus, the
imbalance finally permeated not only the economic and social fields but also
the political sphere.
The structure of society has assumed that of the inverted pyramid whereby
the relatively few landlords practically monopolized all economic, social and
political power, while the vast majority of citizens, mostly peasants,
remained poor, ignorant and politically impotent. The situation tends to
degenerate
even with the growth of industrialization inasmuch as the landlords, due to
their advantages, are also becoming the biggest industrialists. Moreover, the
situation has become extremely more complicated because the various
aspects of the problem economic, social and political continued to react
one upon
another. So that in time what was formerly a cause became also an effect
and what was formerly an effect became also a cause a vicious cycle.
An intellectual superiority has enabled the landlords to acquire great political
power. In turn, great political power has enabled the landlords to acquire
more wealth and greater social superiority. The cycle continues to turn in a
downward spiral and, at every turn, it depresses the economic, social and
political condition of the whole world further and further. And, therefore, like
playing golf, we should give handicap to the marginal class belonging to
the labor, peasant, urban and youth sectors, but to give them only a period
of two terms after the ratification of the Constitution, according to
Commissioner Tadeo, is not enough. They want reserve seats forever.
In other words, if we are playing golf, they want to have the handicap
forever. According to Commissioners Tadeo and Lerum, if we give only two
terms
after the ratification, sooner or later, the sectoral groups will be swallowed by
the traditional political parties who are better financed.
However, I think that if we give the sectoral groups their handicaps
eternally or forever, they could remain weak forever; they will have no
incentive to
get stronger because they know that they will be enjoying the handicap
forever.
I was toying with the idea that perhaps we could reach a happy compromise
because legislation is the art of the possible, I always say. Instead of
completely adopting the amendment of Commissioner Monsod that the
reserve seats are only for the first two terms after the ratification of the
Constitution, it may state as follows: TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE SEATS
ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED BY
SELECTION OR ELECTION
FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR AND YOUTH SECTORS WHICH
SHALL GRADUALLY DECREASE AFTER EVERY ELECTION FOLLOWING THE
FIRST TWO TERMS AFTER THE
RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, UNTIL THE RESERVE SEATS ARE NO
LONGER NECESSARY AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
As I see it, when we play golf, we minimize the handicap until the handicap is
totally diminished. The same principle applies. That is my idea, Madam
President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the next speaker?
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized, Madam
President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I am in full agreement with the concept of
sectoral representation. However, I have some disagreement on the
mechanics.
The Monsod proposal with which I have to differ speaks of reservation only
for two terms after the ratification of the Constitution. My personal position
is: 1) we should provide for perpetual reservation of institutional seats for the
basic sectors-and by that, I refer to the peasants, the labor, the youth
and the urban poor; and 2) that the process for sectoral representation
should be done by election and not by selection. I will propose the necessary
and
pertinent amendments to this at the proper time. But, Madam President, I
would preface my amendment by saying that although the Constitution is a
fundamental law, if it is unable to achieve a proper balance of power, its
institutional virility is seriously doubted.
The problem with Philippine politics now is that the concentration of
socioeconomic and political power is in the hands of the few, while the
majority of
the people are destitute and powerless. Now is the time and the unedited
opportunity for us to transfer the center of gravity of socioeconomic power
from
the people on top to the people below. This proposal for sectoral
representation is hardly iconoclastic; it is not a leftist aberration as some of
us are
inclined to think. Why dc we have to look askance at it as a dynamic and
powerful sectoral representation? Now, more than ever, is the time for us to
realize the lessons of history. History is liberating, otherwise, we might as
well consign it to the dung heap of oblivion. History has told us to be
either nationalistic or wary of the forces that invade self-determination or it
could also be just a kinetic over-reaction. But history is the best teacher
in the sense that a peoples history is liberating history. We knot that
traditional politics has denied the people the right to make their own
mistakes.
Elite politics has been sure-fire formula for depriving us of the luxury of
making our own mistakes. I think that it is now the time to return the power
to
the people; let us have faith in them. And by faith, I mean real and abiding
faith, not just looking at the people as some kind of a mystical entity in
whose name the eternal politician in some of us have done themselves
proud. In other words, let the Filipinos chart their own histories.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I would like to say a few words in support of
the amendment proposed by Commissioner Tadeo for the permanentizing
of reserve
seats for the sectors. The basic premise for this is that by these sectors, we
mean the underprivileged masses. That is clearly what is in our mind. The
sectors mentioned are understood as the underprivileged masses. In the
1935 and 1973 Constitutions, and again in our new Constitution, we have
enshrined
the concept of social justice; and we have understood the concept of social
justice not so much as a philosophical concept but as a practical concept,
meaning, that those who have less in life should have more in law. Now we
are placing sectoral representation side by side with the party list system,
and
I think it is important to look at it in that context. The effort to introduce the
party list system has for its objective the equalization of political
power. In other words, in order that political power will not be concentrated
in two parties, we are attempting to introduce a party list system in order
to distribute political power among various parties. But the distribution of
political power is very much dependent, we might even say essentially
dependent, on the distribution of economic power, and the effective
distribution of economic power would take quite a while.
After we finish our discussion on the Article on the Legislative, we will be
discussing the Article on Social Justice. I am sure that all of those who had
the opportunity to read the proposals, if not just scan over them, will see that
these are long-range goals which will not be attained immediately. It is
only upon the attainment of these long-range goals that the very gross
imbalances in economic power will be remedied, and I anticipate that the
remedying
of this will take place far longer than just two terms of the House of
Representatives, which means only six years. It will take a little longer than
that.
We cannot anticipate that this preferential treatment of the underprivileged
will no longer be needed after six years. I anticipate that it will still be
needed after six years. After all, the concept of reserve seat is not something
unusual to our Constitution. We have reintroduced the Upper House or the
Senate with 24 representatives which, in effect, represents reserve seats for
those who have more political and economic power. Because these are seats
which are quite beyond the capacity of the underprivileged to reach and
because these are seats which, in the context of our history, require people
who
have had vast experience, broad education and, let us face it, economic
wealth, therefore, elitism in the; Senate, although we might say that it is
elitism
in terms of political perspective, education, wisdom and experience, one
cannot really separate from it class distinction. Class distinction is very much
involved in this.
Therefore, by permanentizing these twenty-five seats reserved for the
underprivileged, I think that we will be permanently injecting into the
legislative
process direct contact, as it were, with the large masses of people whose
economic position in life need to be elevated. I would, therefore, very
strongly
urge that we remove this limit of two terms. But when we reach such a time
when we have succeeded in substantially removing the gross inequities of
the
economic situation of the nation, then a constitutional amendment can be
introduced so we can move into the purely party list system because,
hopefully, by
that time, the underprivileged will no longer need to have this power
delivered to them, as it were, on a silver platter.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President. I do not know if this is the
appropriate time for me to say this, but I just want to find out why the
indigenous
communities are not represented, although in a separate paper, it says that
the representation of the four functional sectors could include indigenous
cultural communities. What I am saying is this I would argue for the inclusion
of indigenous cultural communities not so much because they are
marginalized, but because they are still practicing customary laws which are
specifically related to their central concerns, essentially the question of
ancestral land. I have in mind the real possibility of cross-fertilization of legal
systems, one that will take into account the viable indigenous legal
systems in the Philippines and integrate this into other legal systems, so
that, eventually, we might evolve a legal system that is truly Filipino, drawing
sustenance from our indigenous traditions, as well as other traditions. I
would imagine that such an inclusion of representatives from the indigenous
cultural communities would provide this rich opportunity.
I should add that the College of Law of the University of the Philippines,
along with some anthropologists and political scientists, is already
undertaking
extensive and comprehensive studies of indigenous legal systems. But the
mere presence of representatives of these indigenous cultural systems would
provide a living laboratory for this kind of cross-fertilization.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
I would like to support the amendment now under discussion which was
introduced by Commissioners Villacorta, Monsod and the others. Let us start
with the
theory of sectoral representation, whether as reserve seats or as may be
achieved through a party list system.
There are two kinds of representation: the territorial representation, which is
based on representative government, and which started taking root at the
beginning of the 19th century in many of the Western countries which we
now call the Western democracies. It became evident later on that territorial
representation has its limitations, that functional representation might be
necessary in order to round off the excellence of a representative system.
And
that was how the theory of party list representation or the reservation of
some seats in a legislature for sectors came about.
I think the whole idea is based on countervailing methods with the aim of
perfecting representation in a legislative body combining the territorial as
well
as the functional modes of representation. The ideal manner of securing
functional representation is through a party list system through popular
suffrage
so that when sectoral representatives get into a legislative body on this
basis, rather than direct regional or district representation, they can rise to
the same majesty as that of the elected representatives in the legislative
body, rather than owing to some degree their seats in the legislative body
either to an outright constitutional gift or to an appointment by the President
of the Philippines. I think, therefore, this proposed amendment now meets
this test. There is an outright constitutional gift for the first two terms of the
sectoral representatives but, after that, they will have to earn the
seats through participation in a party list system or, even beyond that, to be
direct competitors with established and more orthodox parties in the general
political arena. I see no reason why after having occupied seats in the Rouse
of Representatives for two terms, the representatives of sectors may not be
able to combine their forces in order to form their own political parties or
become powerful adjuncts to existing political parties so that they will enjoy
not only the benefits of a party list system but also the benefits of being able
to compete directly in the wider political arena.
Let me give an example. In many countries in Europe, the labor parties today
are direct competitors for power with the long-established conservative
parties. And it is a fact that in many countries of Europe, for example, one
sees labor or socialist parties actually alternating in power with the
so-called conservative parties. In addition to that, in Germany, of course, the
more radical parties win their seats routinely through the party list
system and not as an outright constitutional gift of reserve seats to which
the marginalized sectors are appointed, in effect, through their

representatives; in the case of the Philippine experience, by the President of
the Philippines on the basis of the nominations of the several sectors.
So, I see in this Monsod-Villacorta amendment a wisdom wherein under a
situation where they start with major disadvantages in the competitive
arena, these
are overcome through an outright constitutional gift of reserve seats for
sectoral representatives. But after two terms, the presumption is, they will
have
to earn these seats through a party list system. And I do not think that during
the two terms, which correspond to six years, the sectoral representatives
will not make use of ample opportunities in order to strengthen themselves
through their performance in the legislature so that they are able to build up
their strength. And after two terms or three terms, then they will be in a
position to take full advantage of the party list system so that on the basis of
two-and-a-half percent or two percent of all the qualified voters in the
country, one seat is earned and that probably corresponds to 500,000 votes.
Commissioner Tadeos organization, I think, claims a membership of one
million. The Kilusang Mayo Uno claims a membership of half a million. The
Trade
Union Congress of the Philippines claims a membership of one million. The
Federation of Free Farmers claims a membership of one million. Let us
assume that
the representatives of these organizations, that is to say, those who enjoy a
membership of one million or about one million, occupy the seats for two
terms, will not six years be enough for them to amalgamate their forces if
there is enough basis of unification so that, from their platform in the
legislature, they can, through a party list system, amass as many seats as
are available now outside territorial representation? And beyond that, they
can
even rise to the level of a major political party able to compete for territorial
representation both for the Senate and the House of Representatives.
In my opinion, this will also create the stimulus for political parties and mass
organizations to seek common ground. For example, we have the PDP-Laban
and the UNIDO. I see no reason why they should not be able to make
common goals with mass organizations so that the very leadership of these
parties can be
transformed through the participation of mass organizations. And if this is
true of the administration parties, this will be true of others like the
Partido ng Bayan which is now being formed. There is no question that they
will be attractive to many mass organizations. In the opposition parties to
which we belong, there will be a stimulus for us to contact mass
organizations so that with their participation, the policies of such parties can
be
radically transformed because this amendment will create conditions that

will challenge both the mass organizations and the political parties to come
together. And the party list system is certainly available, although it is open
to all the parties. It is understood that the parties will enter in the
roll of the COMELEC the names of representatives of mass organizations
affiliated with them. So that we may, in time, develop this excellent system
that
they have in Europe where labor organizations and cooperatives, for
example, distribute themselves either in the Social Democratic Party and the
Christian
Democratic Party in Germany, and their very presence there has a
transforming effect upon the philosophies and the leadership of those
parties.
It is also a fact well known to all that in the United States, the AFL-CIO always
vote with the Democratic Party. But the businessmen, most of them, always
vote with the Republican Party, meaning that there is no reason at all why
political parties and mass organizations should not combine, reenforce,
influence and interact with each other so that the very objectives that we set
in this Constitution for sectoral representation are achieved in a wider,
more lasting and more politically institutionalized way. Therefore, I support
this amendment. It installs sectoral representation as a constitutional gift,
but at the same time, it challenges the sector to rise to the majesty of being
elected representatives later on through a party list system, and even
beyond that, to become actual political parties capable of contesting political
power in the wider constitutional arena for major political parties.
Thank you, Madam President
MR. LERUM: Madam President, will the honorable Commissioner Ople yield to
some questions?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: As a former Minister of Labor, Commissioner Ople is aware of the
fact that labor is at present divided, and the reason for the inclusion of
sectoral representation in the Batasang Pambansa was because of that
situation. Is that not correct?
MR. OPLE: I was instrumental in introducing that amendment in the
Constitution of 1973 for sectoral representation in the Batasang Pambansa,
as
Commissioner Lerum must be aware. But I do not understand the question.
Will he kindly repeat it?
MR. LERUM: I am sorry. My question is: As a former Minister of Labor, is he

aware of the present situation of organized labor? They are divided.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. LERUM: And the reason for this division is ideology and other reasons
which I will not mention now. That is a fact.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. LERUM: And the reason why the Commissioner recommended, as he is
admitting now, sectoral representation is that labor is divided.
MR. OPLE: All sectors presumably are not immune from differences and
division.
MR. LERUM: I know that. But the question is, the Commissioner is aware of
the fact that labor is divided that is why he recommended the inclusion of
sectoral representation in the Batasang Pambansa.
MR. OPLE: Whether labor is divided or not, they are entitled to sectoral
representation under this proposal.
MR. LERUM: I will ask another question. The Commissioner agrees that labor
is entitled to sectoral representation, but is he against making this a
permanent provision in the Constitution?
MR. OPLE: Yes, because I would like them, after two or three terms, to rise to
the majesty of elected representatives through a party list system; and I
have no doubt in my mind that given this constitutional gift, after two or
three terms, they will have the strength to earn it by winning through a party
list system.
MR. LERUM: I agree with the Commissioner on that point if they are united
because if they are united they can even stop this government. If they can
stop
essential services, they can paralyze this government.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. LERUM: I agree with him on that point if they are united. But the fact is,
they are not united, and that is why this kind of provision in the
Constitution is needed so that this big group of workers would be entitled to
a representation. In other words, the government or the State is trying to
help them because of their disunity so that they can do something by having
representation in the Assembly. That is the purpose of this.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the freedom of association does not bestow on
the government the right to interfere with labor organizations or other
sectoral
organizations. I do not think the government should impose unity on them.
We will depend on them to work out their own unification across their wellknown
differences.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I am not saying about the government
compelling them to unite. What I am saying is that, during the time that they
are not
united, why begrudge them of sectoral representation?
MR. OPLE: No. We want them to have sectoral representation.
MR. LERUM: Yes. But, as far as the Commissioner is concerned, he wants this
on a limited period only.
MR. OPLE: Yes, in accordance with the Villacorta-Monsod amendment.
MR. LERUM: On the other hand, he wants the party list system to be a
permanent provision of the Constitution. Is it not the fact that by providing
for the
party list system, he is also providing a reserve seat to those parties that
cannot elect their representatives in the ordinary election? Is that not
correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, as a countervailing mode to the well-established political
parties, I consider the party list system a very important method of what
Commissioner Bernas earlier had called the equalization of political power.
MR. LERUM: My point is that the Commissioner is against a permanent grant
of seats to sectoral representatives but he is in favor of granting permanent
seats to certain organizations that cannot elect their own representatives in
an ordinary election.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. LERUM: I cannot understand the logic of that.
MR. OPLE: The logic lies in the use of popular suffrage which is exactly what
a party list system is, except that certain advantages are stacked up legally
in favor of those who are weaker than those who are stronger.
MR. TADEO: Commissioner Ople, maaari po bang magtanong?

THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, please. Is Commissioner Lerum through?
ME. LERUM: I will give way to Commissioner Tadeo. I have some more
questions, but I can ask these in private so we will not clutter the Record with
some
more questions.
MR. TADEO: Hindi po ba ang Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas ay ang dating
Kilusang Bagong Lipunan?
MR. OPLE: Kung ang tinutukoy ng kaibigang Tadeo ay ang lapian na aking
pinangunguluhan, ito marahil ay nagmula sa sinapupunan ng Kilusang
Bagong Lipunan,
datapwat hindi na kumikilala ngayon sa Kilusang Bagong Lipunan.
MR. TADEO: Hindi po ba ito ay mayroong makinarya na buhat din sa isang
malaking makinarya na hindi pa nabubuwag at ito ay tinatawag nating
political
machine?
MR. OPLE: Itong makinaryang tinutukoy ng kaibigang Tadeo marahil ay
marami nang kalawang sa kanyang mga bahagi.
MR. TADEO: Isa pang tanong. Makikilahok ba ang PNP sa legislative district?
MR. OPLE: Ang PNP ay maghaharap ng buong tiket para sa lahat ng mga
puwesto na paglalabanan sa darating na halalan.
MR. TADEO: Hindi ba totoo rin na ang PNP ay makikilahok din sa party list
system?
MR. OPLE: Kung mayroon kaming mga kapisanang manggagawa at
magbubukid na nakahandang makipag-ugnay sa amin, magpapasok kami ng
talaan ng sampung nominees
diyan sa COMELEC para sa party list system.
MR. TADEO: Doon sa 25 ay puwedeng pumasok ang PNP kahit na wala siyang
magsasaka o manggagawang organisasyon. Doon sa 25 sa party list,
papasok din ba ang
PNP?
MR. OPLE: Maaari, ganoon din naman ang PDP-Laban, UNIDO, Partido ng
Bayan at iba pang mga lapian.
MR. TADEO: Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay puwedeng paghatihatian ng UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP, Liberal at Nacionalista?
MR. OPLE: Maaari iyan sapagkat bukas ang party list system sa lahat ng mga
partido.
MR. TADEO: Naniniwala ba kayo na ang sectoral maaaring lamunin ng
political party sa party list?
MR. OPLE: Sa ngayon, kung kaya binibigyan natin perfect constitutional gift
ang mga sektor na maupo riyan. Datapuwat sa loob ng anim na taon,
aasahan natin
na sila ay magbubuo ng kanilang sariling lakas upang magkaroon ng
pagkakataong manalo sa isang party system.
MR. TADEO: Isang tanong pa. Naniniwala ba kayo ang pagpasok sa politika ay
magastos? Bibigyan ko kayo ng isang konkretong karanasan. Taga-Bulakan
tayo
pareho. Noong kayo ay kumakandidato, walang titingin sa buong Bulakan na
hindi po makikita ang inyong larawan; tumingin ka sa itaas, makikita mo ay
streamer; tumingin ka sa lahat ng lugar, ang makikita mo ay pangalan ni
Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: Mas maraming larawan si Minister Natividad at si Minister Hipolito
kaysa sa inyong lingkod.
MR. TADEO: Ang sabi ni Commissioner Natividad siya iyong pinakamahirap;
pero kahit na siya ang pinakamahirap, kahit saan ka tumingin ay makikita
mo rin ang
kanyang larawan. Ngayon, sa isang marginalized sector sa ganitong
kalagayan, ano ang kanyang pag-asa? Hindi ba maaari lamang kaming itulak
at lamunin ng
isang makinarya?
MR. OPLE: Sa party list system maliwanag na malaki ang pagkakataon ng
mga sektor. Hindi ko naman pinangungunahan ng bait si kasamang Jaime
Tadeo, datapwat
kung mayroong isang milyon na magbubukid ang kasama sa kanyang
organisasyon at makikipagugnay halimbawa, sa Partido Nacionalista ng
Pilipinas o Partido ng
Bayan, at ipapasok sa listahan doon COMELEC na ang nangunguna sa 15 tao
na nakalista para sa Partido ng Bayan ay si Jaime Tadeo, abay katulad din ng
pagsikat ng araw ang panalo ng kasamang Jaime Tadeo sa pamamagitan ng
party list system. Datapwat iyan naman ay payo ko lamang, hindi ko naman
siya
sisingilin diyan sa magandang payong iyan. Datapwat maliwanag ang
nakikita ko na napakaganda ng pagkakataon ng mga sektor lalo na
pagkatapos ng anim na
taon dahil halos sa kanila na mauuwi talaga, sa pamamagitan ng mga
partidong umiiral, ang mga 50 likmuan na nakareserba sa party list system
at sa mga
sector diyan sa ating House of Representatives.
MR. TADEO: Ang nais lang ng mga dukha ay isang mapagkalingang saligang
batas at nakikita namin sa panahong itong hindi pa namin kayang tumindig.
Gusto
namin itong makita at itoy nakatitig mismo sa atin. Kung gagawin lang natin
itong two terms, mayroon lamang akong hindi maunawaan. Bakit
kinakailangang
bigyan pa ng limit? Bakit hindi pa natin ito pagandahin? Ang tanong ni
Commissioner Natividad: Eh, tinatanong ako, Jimmy, sa amin, bakit ba iyong
mga
political parties ay sasama pa sa party list, hindi na lang pabayaan iyan sa
mga marginalized sector?
MR. OPLE: Napakadaling makiusap sa isang partido na isama sa party list
diyan sa COMELEC iyong mga samahan ng manggagawa at magsasaka na
nakikipag-ugnayan
sa kanila. Datapwat ang mahalaga, palagay ko, ay bigyan ng pagkakataon
ngayon din, as a constitutional gift, ang mga labor, peasant, youth and urban
poor
sa pamamagitan nitong Villacorta-Monsod amendment. Kung gusto naman
ninyong makipagtawaran kay kasamang Monsod at kasamang Villacorta sa
halip na two terms
ay gawin na nating tatlo, palagay ko naman ay hindi kayo pagdadamutan.
Iyon palagay ko ay subject to negotiation.
Marami pong salamat, Ginang Pangulo.
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue this very interesting and enlightening
discussion after lunch.
The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, before we suspend our session, I move
that the Commission congratulate and extend its best wishes to two birthday
celebrants, Commissioner Ahmad D. Alonto and the Secretary-General.
It was 12:29 p.m.

We will ask our guests and everybody else to please maintain silence during
our deliberations. And before we proceed with the business for the afternoon,
the Chair would like to recognize Commissioner Villacorta to introduce to the
Commission the different groups that are with us here this afternoon.
MR. VILLACORTA: Ginang Pangulo, kinikilala po natin at binibigyang pansin
ang mga kinatawan ng mga manggagawa, magbubukid, mga minorya mula
sa Cordillera,
mga mag-aaral at mga kababaihan. Ang mga kinatawan po ng mga sektor na
ito ay naririto sa Constitutional Commission upang pukawin ang ating
kaloobang
makabayan, maka-Kristiyano at maka-Muslim, at bigyan sila ng sapat at
makahulugang representasyon sa ating Kongreso.
Marami pong salamat. (Applause)
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we will now continue our discussion on the
Article on the Legislative. This concerns the issue between the proponents of
the
party list system and the sectoral representation.
May I now ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we are continuing the discussion on the party list system
which is to be incorporated in the Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to propound a few questions to the proponents,
but before I do so, I would like to state that the purpose of the interpellations
is that when the Constitution has been enacted and the people would like to
know the exact meaning of a certain provision of the Constitution, they can
refer to the transcript of proceedings and, based on the questions and
answers by the proponent, they can derive a basis for the correct
interpretation of
the provision. Usually, during interpellations, the one who answers the
question is the proponent . . . either the Committee Chairman or the
individual
proponent of the amendment. Thus, the answer of the proponent is sort of
authoritative because he is the proponent of the amendment. However, in
this
proposed provision regarding the party list and sectoral representation, there
are 27 proponents. So, I would like to know if there is a spokesman for the
27 proponents.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning it was Commissioner Villacorta who made
introductory remarks, followed by Commissioner Monsod. So, I will leave it to
the two
Gentlemen to decide who will be the one to answer any interpellation on this
subject matter.
MR. RODRIGO: The name of Commissioner Monsod is number one in the list
of 27 Commissioners. So, I suppose he is the principal proponent.
MR. MONSOD: I am willing to be questioned, but I would like to ask the help
of the other Commissioners also, perhaps with other questions in which they
are
more knowledgeable than I am.
MR. LERUM: Will the author of the amendment please read the cosponsors of
the amendment so that we will know who they are.
MR. MONSOD: The ones who were in the list this morning, other than
Commissioner Villacorta and myself, were: Commissioners Bernas, Gascon,
Garcia, Davide,
Bengzon, Nieva, Azcuna, Bacani, Rigos, Tan, Suarez, Sarmiento, Ople,
Tingson, Guingona, Foz, Romulo, Uka, Rosario Braid, Villegas and Bennagen.
MR. RODRIGO: Then, I will propound my question to Commissioner Monsod
whose name appears as number one in the list.
My questions have reference to the party list system and the sectoral
representation in the House of Representatives. I would like to preface my
questions
by stating that I am in favor of the basic idea of having sectoral
representation and representation by means of the party list in the House of
Representatives. However, from the very beginning, I already expressed my

misgivings about the mechanics, the practicableness of this idea. I think this
is
in line with the thinking of the Constitutional Commission on this matter. We
like this party list and sectoral representation, if they can be implemented
properly. And we should leave to the legislature the enactment of the
implementing laws or the enabling acts. The legislature will have more time
to study
the problem on how this can be implemented. The legislature can go into
details on the mechanics. This we cannot do in the Constitutional
Commission
because a Constitution must be brief, concise and broad.
So, I am very glad when I read this proposed amendment which stated twice
the phrase AS PROVIDED BY LAW. Let me go through it: THROUGH A PARTY
LIST
SYSTEM OF REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES
SHALL CONSTITUTE TWENTY
PER CENT OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PROVIDED THAT FOR THE FIRST TWO TERMS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF
THIS CONSTITUTION TWENTY FIVE
OF THE SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE
FILLED BY SELECTION OR ELECTION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW FROM THE
LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR AND
YOUTH SECTORS.
And so, my first question is: In the light of the phrase AS PROVIDED BY
LAW, do I take it that this party list system and the sectoral representation
provision will not take effect until an enabling act or an implementing
legislation shall have been enacted by Congress?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the first Assembly will be in March or April.
But when we say AS PROVIDED BY LAW, it could really mean that it may be
by
ordinance appended to this Constitution or an executive order by the
incumbent President or, as the Gentleman has said, by law provided by the
incoming
Congress. So, it could be any of these ways.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, we are all witnesses to the difficulty in
arriving at a consensus of these very novel ideas on the disputes that we
have had.
And up to now, there is no real consensus yet. Does the Commissioner
believe that we should really try to go into the details by enacting an
ordinance to
the Constitution? In other words, should we force the issue? Should we insist
that before this Constitution is submitted to the people in a plebiscite, we
shall have already deemed the details on how this party list system and
sectoral representation can be implemented in the first election after the
ratification of the Constitution?
MR. MONSOD: We just want to establish the principle of the party list system
with sectoral representation in the present Constitution. We can discuss
whether the body in its collective wisdom feels that it is qualified or should
go into the ordinance after we have established the principle, and we will
be guided by the vote or judgment of this Commission.
MR. RODRIGO: Considering our time constraint and the many other
provisions that we have not yet discussed, does the Commissioner believe
that we are in a
position to draft, study and enact a virtual piece of legislation, with all
details, regarding the implementation of this party list system and sectoral
representation, so that it will be finished in time for the approval of this
Constitution? Should we not abandon that idea and leave this matter to the
legislature?
MR. MONSOD: I believe that it is really not a very complicated system, and it
is possible. But I will yield to the time problem, if there is really a time
problem. Certainly, I do not think that this Commission would want to put an
ordinance that is half-baked.
Secondly, such an ordinance could also apply only to the first term under this
Constitution, after which the regular Congress may provide as it sees fit on
how the future system will work.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the Commissioner then admits that in all probability it will
be the first Congress to be elected after the promulgation of this
Constitution that will enact the implementing law.
MR. MONSOD: As I said, that would depend on the work and judgment of this
Commission.
MR. RODRIGO: Which is the more probable because this is important?
MR. MONSOD: This is just a personal opinion. I believe that we can work out
an ordinance that would be applicable to the first Congress after this
Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Suppose we will not have time to enact such ordinance and I
personally believe that we will not have time? I want to be honest and
candid. So,
this will be left either to President Cory Aquino and she will enact an enabling
legislation all by herself or to the first Congress. Considering that
President Aquino is saddled with so many duties and worries she is even
going to the United States sometime in September does not the
Commissioner
think that it is practical to expect that the President can enact the
implementing legislation on this matter?
MR. MONSOD: We approximately have a month and a half, and the President
will have about six months to enact something that would apply to the first
Congress. And the President does not work alone, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Did the Commissioner consult the Chief Executive or anybody
connected with President Aquino on whether this can be accomplished?
MR. MONSOD: We believe that this Commission is a plenary body and we
should make our own judgment on the matter.
MR. RODRIGO: All right, let me proceed then. I want to be very practical
about this. First of all, I do not think that we will have time to enact an
ordinance to be appended to the Constitution. Secondly, I do not think we
should expect the President to be able to enact a legislation to implement
this.
And so, the most probable thing to do is to have Congress enact an enabling
act. Let us start from that practical premise. At least I will start from that
practical premise.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just mention something? The
Commissioner said that he is starting from a practical premise. I think we
agree with him
that we may have a time problem, but we think that there is enough time to
implement it because we also must give voice to the sectors that we want
represented even in the first Congress under this Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, Madam President. But then, we are appointed officials.
This is a very important provision for our people. The first Congress will be
composed of representatives elected by the people. Does not the
Commissioner think that they are in a better position to enact the enabling
act or the
implementing legislation since they are elected by the people? They are in
closer touch with the people. So, does he not think that we have to be
realistic
and just say this will be implemented, hopefully, by the first Congress to be
elected by the people after the ratification of this Constitution?
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Rodrigo have any proposed amendment

to the amendment proposed by Commissioner Monsod and others?
MR. RODRIGO: No, Madam President. We are not yet in the period of
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: He has a proposed amendment, so my question is: Is
Commissioner Rodrigo suggesting a proposed amendment to this draft that
they have
submitted?
MR. RODRIGO: No, I am just asking questions for clarification. I made that
very clear from the very beginning, Madam President.
Let us say that we fail to enact the needed ordinance to be appended to the
Constitution, so the method left will be for the President or Congress to enact
the implementing law. This proposed amendment reads: . . . SHALL BE
FILLED BY SELECTION OR ELECTION AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW FROM THE
LABOR, PEASANT,
URBAN POOR AND YOUTH SECTORS. So, there is an enumeration of four
sectors. If this amendment is approved by us and ratified by the people, it
becomes part
of the Constitution. May Congress or the President add any sector to the four
sectors enumerated here?
MR. MONSOD: These are generic terms for the sectors. And, of course,
Congress may, if it wishes, break down these general classifications into
more
sectors. In other words, they can say that within the labor sector, it would
mean these sectors or subsectors and they can have that enumeration. The
enumeration of the four sectors, we believe, covers the marginalized sectors
and the subsectors can be added or explained in more detail by law.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the only thing that can be added by either the President
or by Congress are the subsectors subsectors of labor, subsectors of the
peasants, subsectors of the urban poor or subsectors of the youth. Is that
correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President. As a matter of fact, we have discussed
this with the people who were proposing this. Perhaps, to give an idea of the
other categories that could be considered as included in these sectors, I
would like to ask Commissioner Villacorta to please explain to us the
coverage of
the sectors.
MR. RODRIGO: May I ask Commissioner Villacorta a definite question

regarding this? For example, is the sector of indigenous communities
included among the
four sectors? May the legislature add indigenous communities as sector?
MR. VILLACORTA: That was suggested by Commissioner Bennagen and,
personally, I am open to that idea. We started with four functional sectors on
the understanding that members of all nonfunctionally classified sectors can fall under
these four sectors. Therefore, women, teachers, indigenous communities, as
originally conceived, could fall under any of these four sectors; but then, as I
said, the proponents of the sectoral representation are open to the idea
of incorporating one more sector. I think if we have too many, it might open
the floodgates to suggestions to incorporate many other sectors and it will
be
an endless list.
MR. RODRIGO: Precisely, my question is: Should we enumerate the sectors,
thereby limiting them by means of this constitutional provision, or should we
give
the discretion to Congress to add to or subtract from later on?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just add that as a matter of fact, one
of the proposed amendments that we understand will be made is to put the
phrase
AS PROVIDED BY LAW in the second to the last sentence in order to give a
little more flexibility to Congress or to the ordinance of the President.
MR. RODRIGO: If that is the wording, Congress is still limited to the four
sectors. Would the Commissioner agree to an amendment to this effect
which will
read: LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN AND YOUTH SECTORS, AND SUCH OTHER
SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW?
MR. MONSOD: We are willing to consider such an amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Because under this, I do not know where we can add the
indigenous communities or the women. We have the youth sector. How about
us, the
elderly, senior citizens?
MR. MONSOD: Under the proposed amendment, we will gladly include that as
part of the total enumeration. We can even consider that as part of the
youth.
MR. RODRIGO: Second childhood? Just one last point. In case we fail to
incorporate that ordinance and in case the President cannot act, then
Congress meets
and when Congress meets, that is the only time that an implementing
legislation can be enacted. In that case, this provision, that the first two
terms
shall start after the ratification of this Constitution, would not be fair. Is that
correct?
MR. RODRIGO: It must be made to start from the first election where the
party list and sectoral representatives are elected. Would that be correct?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Tadeo be
recognized with regard to his amendment.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, I withdraw my amendment to give way to
Commissioner Aquinos amendment which I also adopt.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be made of record that Commissioner Tadeo had
withdrawn his proposed amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, this proposed amendment is being
cosponsored by Commissioners Bernas and Tadeo with this Member.
THE PRESIDENT: Louder, please.
MS. AQUINO: This proposed amendment is being cosponsored by
Commissioners Bernas and Tadeo and this Member. For purposes of clarity,
our amendment would
seek to: 1) provide basic perpetual institutionalization of reserve seats for
the basic sectors, meaning, the labor, peasant, urban poor, youth and others
as may be provided by law; and 2) that the process of selection of the
sectoral representatives will be done by election. If the Commissioners will
be
guided by the xerox copies of the compromise amendment furnished them
this morning, the amendment would read: THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM
OF REGISTERED
NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS AS
PROVIDED BY LAW. THE PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE
TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TWENTY-FIVE OF THE SEATS
ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED BY ELECTION,
AS PROVIDED BY LAW,
FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR AND YOUTH SECTORS.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to propose an amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nieva is recognized first.
MS. NIEVA: May I propose an amendment to the amendment of my fellow
lady Commissioner, Commissioner Aquino. This long-awaited breakthrough
which would open
up the system to the marginalized and basic sectors, as well as various
parties and organizations, I think, deserves the full support of this
Constitutional Commission which is really comprised of members appointed
as representatives of various sectors.
My amendment would add a fifth sector to the list of four sectors, and this is
the women sector. I think women, who compose more than 50 percent of our
population, would certainly deserve special mention here in the sense that
we have been marginalized for too long as far as the political life of the
country is concerned. So, since it is a provision for 25 seats to be filled by the
sectors, this would make it a very even representation five seats per
sector. So, that is my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by the proponent?
MS. AQUINO: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I just add that I was going to propose
the same amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Guingona is a cosponsor.
MR. GUINGONA: No, Madam President. What I would like to add is 25. This
will facilitate our work insofar as the preparation or the drafting of the
ordinance is concerned, because 25 would be easier to divide by five than by
four, at least for the first Congress.

MR. BENNAGEN: Earlier this morning, I mentioned that when we are in the
period of amendments, I would like to include the group of indigenous
cultural
communities not only because they are marginalized but they will contribute
immensely to the evolution of an indigenous legal system. I did mention
earlier
that this will be an important contribution by representatives from the
indigenous cultural communities who still live by viable customary laws.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I would gladly accept that, except that I
would suggest that we address first the basic concepts that we are proposing
before
we approach the matter of representation of sectors, because it-might clutter
the issues.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: I have no objection. It is just that I am proposing that we
tentatively defer discussion of the identification of the sectors so that the
issues will be focused on the major amendments that we are proposing.
MR. BENNAGEN: I just want to mention that because I notice that the sector
was again forgotten in the subsequent deliberations from this mornings
discussion.
MS. AQUINO: There was no intention to omit that, Madam President.
May I be allowed also to mention, for the guidance of the Commissioners,
that this proposal that I have read earlier will have to be intimately coupled
with another paragraph which has to be referred to the Article on Transitory
Provisions, and the proposal would read: FOR THE FIRST TERM OF CONGRESS
FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, THE SECTORAL
REPRESENTATIVES PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 5 SHALL BE APPOINTED BY
THE PRESIDENT FROM THE LIST OF
NOMINEES SUBMITTED BY THE SECTORS.
This proposal is addressed to the difficulty of coming out with the mechanics
and the logistics of the sectoral elections immediately after the adoption of
this Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: For the guidance again of the Commissioners, will

Commissioner Aquino please stress those points that she seeks to submit to
the body in her
proposed amendment?
MS. AQUINO: In summary, the points that we are proposing to introduce in
this article are: First, the perpetual reservation of institutional seats for the
sectors thus defined; and second, the process should be done by election.
THE PRESIDENT: Will that perpetual reservation consist of the 20 percent?
The Commissioner is not changing the 20 percent?
MS. AQUINO: No. The third is that for the first election following the adoption
of the Constitution, the sectoral representatives will be appointed by the
President. We have to yield to the difficulty of an immediate sectoral
election.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I am not objecting to the proposed
amendment granting sectoral representation to the women, but that would
mean we are going to
take some seats from the other sectors. So if that is to be done, then we
have to increase the number of sectoral seats. What will happen now is this:
It
is a fact that representatives from the peasant, labor and youth sectors have
their seats already. We are adding some more, but we are not increasing the
number of seats. So if the amendment for the inclusion of women in the
sectors will be approved, then we have to increase the number of seats
allotted to
the sectors. Maybe only one seat will be left to the labor sector.
MS AQUINO: Madam President, may I reiterate my request that we focus first
on the principles that are being proposed Let us defer any discussion on this
matter. This is likewise significant; I am not saying that we are quibbling over
petty matters, but I would only like us to focus on the basic principles
of the amendments which are major.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, if that is the case, then what are we going to
vote on?
I agree with Commissioner Aquino that for the first election for Congress, it is
impossible to have an election of the sectoral representatives because we
still have to enact a law, and the only one that can enact it will be Congress.
The moment we put in this Constitution the provision that the sectoral
representatives will be elected, then a law therefor must be enacted.
So I agree with the amendment that for the first Congress, the sectoral
representatives should be chosen by appointment from recommendees of
these sectors.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to suggest to Commissioner Lerum that
the body can vote in principle on this proposed amendment and then have it
approved because we do not know yet if this will be approved then he
can propose a subsequent amendment to change the number of the seats.
The Chair
thinks that will be perfectly in order. Can we do that?
MR. LERUM: May we have a suspension of the session for a few minutes so
we can discuss this matter rather than have interpellations of each other on
the
floor?
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the next proponent?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I suggest that we finish the amendments
first. Commissioner Rodrigo has another proposed amendment to the
amendment. Perhaps
we should call on him first, after which the discussion can take place in
accordance with the list of speakers I have.
I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President. this amendment is on the last line of the
text. The sectors as enumerated are: labor, peasant, urban poor and youth. I
think
somebody filed an amendment to that amendment by adding the word
WOMEN. Moreover, somebody announced that he will file an amendment
to the amendment by
adding INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES.
I do not know if anybody else will add any specific sector. but my
amendment is to place a comma (,) after the word enumeration and add
AND SUCH OTHER
SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
FR. BERNAS: I would like to reiterate the motion made by Commissioner

Aquino that we attend first to the essentials of the matter, whether or not we
will
have permanent reserve seats for the sectors. After we have decided that,
then we can talk about what sectors will be included, because if we decide
that
there will be no permanent seats for the sectors, then we will have nothing
to talk about.
REV. RIGOS: I understand that the Floor Leader is suggesting that we
consider now all the proposed amendments, including that of Commissioner
Aquino Then,
we can sit down together and find out how we can draft the whole thing.
That is why Commissioner Rodrigo was allowed to present his amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear first the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Rigos so that we can see if it can be adjusted?
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I do not know where to put my proposed
amendment but the idea is, I would like to exempt the religious group. In
other words,
it should be clearly understood that in this particular section, we will not
include any religious group.
MR. SUAREZ: May we just ask Commissioner Rodrigo a question before we
vote on the proposal of Commissioner Aquino? Commissioner Rodrigo is
suggesting the
inclusion of the phrase AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED
BY LAW in the last portion of the proposed resolution. Is the Commissioner
suggesting
also that after the word election we delete the words as provided by law?
MR. RODRIGO: I have not studied that very well so I have not come to any
conclusion; and I do not know the consequences of that proposal.
MR. SUAREZ: I asked that because the process of election and the matter of
choosing the sectors have to be provided by law. I think the two should be
retained.
MR. RODRIGO: I agree with the Commissioner
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now to vote on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Aquino?
MR. ROMULO: I move for a suspension of the session.
It was 3:34 p.m.
MR. ROMULO: I ask the Commissioners Monsod and Aquino be recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Aquino inquire if her amendment to the
amendment is accepted or not.
MS. AQUINO: I am being instructed to inquire from Commissioner Monsod if
my amendment is accepted by his group.
MR. MONSOD: We regret that we cannot accept the proposed amendment.
MR. ROMULO: As agreed upon in the caucus, the body will now discuss the
question of whether or not we will have permanent sectoral representation.
The
speakers are as follows: Commissioners Rosario Braid, Quesada, Brocka,
Sarmiento, Garcia and Villegas.
I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, is this for the permanent sectoral
representation?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President. That is the only issue to be debated at
this time.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, members of the Committee: While I
do sympathize with the arguments of Commissioner Tadeo and the others
about the need
for sectoral representation, I would, however, argue against the
institutionalization of sectoral representation. I think we could arrive later at
a
compromise agreement where we could increase the term to maybe three or
four terms, at which time the sectors could be given the opportunity to
become more
self-reliant, to be able to forge horizontal links and coalitions with other
sectors who are in search of new political values and a new political culture.
I think this is a great opportunity for us to be able to develop party issues
and a platform that will provide countervailing force against elite party
politics.
Madam President, may I give some examples of similar experiences in other
countries. The Green Party in Europe has emerged as a political movement
that has
cut across sectoral groups. It has been able to organize an imaginative
program which started with the problems of the marginalized group, such as
the
exploitation of the poor, and has extended its efforts to problems like the
search for authentic personal values, concerned with the environment and
concerned with the values of frugality and simplicity. This program has
attracted various groups from different economic and social classes the
youth and
the post-materialist groups.
This is true, too, with the Solidarity Movement in Poland which has attracted
other groups beyond the original group the exploited labor group. This is
also true with the Gandhian politics that emerged in India. These movements
are attempts in coming up with what we call examples of participatory or
communitarian democracy. These are movements that are able to come up
with countervailing values against elite values which center around
technology,
materialism, depersonalization and bureaucracy.
Madam President, I, therefore, hope that the sectors would be given reserve
seats for 9 or 12 years and would have the opportunity to influence others
and
to move away from their sectoral concerns and from what could become a
class struggle within that period of time. When they shall have organized into
a
party, they may move towards new approaches in problem-solving rather
than merely focus on their particular sectoral problems.
In view of this opportunity to move towards a new kind of party or political
culture, I would support the need for a party list system with this
compromise
that would lengthen the term to maybe three or four terms in order to give
them opportunity to grow and evolve.
In the final analysis, I think we do not want to give them patronage and
neither would they want patronage. They may like to have opportunity to
compete in
the political arena.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Quesada be
recognized.
MR. ROMULO: May I remind the speakers that we agreed on two-minute
interpellations. The Commissioners will please look at the wallclock for the
time.
THE PRESIDENT: I will give them three minutes.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, members of the Committee: I would like to
request that I speak in Pilipino, in behalf of the farmers, the workers and the
minority groups here. (Applause)
THE PRESIDENT: May we remind again our audience to please refrain from
any outward manifestation of approval or disapproval during our
deliberations.
MS. QUESADA: Ako ay bumoboto sa perpetual or permanent reserve seats for
the sectors. Ngunit ang ibig sabihin nito ay hindi forever. Ang gusto lang
natin
ay hindi maitatak sa ating Konstitusyon kung hanggang kailan lang sila may
reserve seats iyong sasabihing two terms, three terms o four terms,
dahil hindi natin masasabi kung kailan talaga uunlad ang mga sectors upang
sila ay lumaban bilang isang political party. Ngayon, ang mahalaga ay
kinakailangang pumili ang mga sectors ng kanilang tunay na kinatawan. Ang
nangyayari kapag pumasok na ang sectoral representatives sa larangan ng
pulitika
ay mayroong transformation na nangyayari sa kanila. Marami na ang istorya
tungkol sa mga manggagawa at magbubukid na kapag silay nakapasok na
sa larangan
ng pulitika, iba na ang sinasabi at dinadala nila. Sa pagpasok sa power
dynamics ng pulitika, natututo na ngayon silang pumasok sa mga alliances,
negotiations, mga trade-offs at kadalasan ay nakakalimutan na nila ang
interes ng kanilang sector. Kaya sa palagay ko ay napakahalaga na ang
marginalized
sectors ay may reserve seats sa lehislatura dahil hindi pa magbabago sa
isang dekada ang kanilang kalagayang pang-ekonomiya at pang-sosyal. Kaya
ako ay
naniniwalang hindi dapat lagyan ng taning kung kailan sila mawawalan ng
reserve seats at tumakbo o makilahok at lumaban sa larangan ng pulitika.
Alam
nating ang marginalized sectors ay wala pang kakayahan dahil sa hindi pa
nagbabago ang kanilang kalagayang pang ekonomiya at pangsosyal. Iyon
ang aking
posisyon at sinusuportahan ko ang posisyon ni Commissioner Bernas, Aquino
at Tadeo. (Applause)
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, no one claps for the Floor Leader when he
does all the work.
I ask that Commissioner Brocka be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
However, may I remind again our guests to refrain from any outward
manifestation of approval or disapproval because if this goes on, then we will
be
constrained to ask the audience to leave because we want our deliberations
to be as impartial as possible.
Thank you.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to react to some of the opinions expressed this morning. We are
agreed that there should be not only territorial representation but also
sectoral or functional representation. However, we are still divided on the
question of whether sectoral or functional representatives should be
provided
with reserve seats on a permanent basis or on a temporary basis and
whether they should be appointed or elected.
Those who say that sectoral representatives should be given reserve seats
for only two terms say that this provision is a constitutional gift we are giving
them, and that if they want to keep those seats, they should earn them. I
find this very patronizing.
When we started the Constitutional Commission, one of the first things that
we addressed ourselves to was this question of public hearing. We were very
much aware of the fact that we were appointed by the President. So, there
was this necessity. It was almost imperative that we go to the provinces. We
go
to the people to listen to them. This is what we call public hearing. We keep
talking about consulting and listening to the people. We keep talking about
people power However, it seems to me that we are reluctant to give this
people power a definite or concrete political form Let us remind ourselves for
the
nth time that it was people power that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and
installed the Aquino government. We forget that in the darkest days of the
dictatorship, when political parties were abolished or marginalized, it was the
peoples sectoral organizations that really fought for justice, freedom and
democracy.
My point is that the people, through their sectoral organizations, have earned
the right to be represented in the councils of state and in the legislature.
They have earned the right through their blood, sweat and tears.
We are not giving them a constitutional gift on a silver platter. What is
demanded of us is that we, the Constitutional Commission, recognize and
protect
the peoples right to have reserve seats in the legislature. We must give due
recognition and respect for this new force in the Philippine political scene
a force operating outside the traditional political parties, but a force
powerful enough to have ousted a dictator and have given us the democratic
space
in which we are now moving.
In fact, the very composition of this Constitutional Commission is a

recognition of this new political force. I would not be here today if it were not
recognized that artists and cultural workers, along with the laborers, the
peasants, the youth, the teachers, the religious sectors, et cetera, deserve a
chance to participate not only in the dreaming of dreams, but also in the
making of laws.
I agree with Commissioner Aquino that these sectoral seats should also be
elective rather than appointive. At the same time, I agree with
Commissioners
Tadeo and Bernas that these seats should be permanently installed in the
legislature. I might even go so far as to say that, if we really want a
bicameral
legislature, one entire House can be given over to sectoral representatives
and the other House can be for territorial representatives.
But perhaps, this idea is too unorthodox to be accepted at this time. And so, I
am willing to compromise and settle for 25 seats in the Lower House. What
is important is, I repeat, for us to recognize that the peoples sectoral
organizations have fully and overwhelmingly earned the right to be given
permanent reserve seats in the legislature.
And so, together with Commissioner Tadeo, and in behalf of the sectors
sitting in the gallery the laborers, the peasants, indigenous communities,
the
youth, the women, et cetera I am begging my fellow Constitutional
Commissioners to protect their earned right to represent themselves in the
legislature.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I will be brief. I will not consume two
minutes.
I see the wisdom of sectoral representation. I agree with my colleagues
advocating for sectoral representation. As a matter of fact, I believe that the
sectors should be expanded to cover professionals and teachers and
government employees because I believe they belong to the oppressed
sectors in our
society.
However, I personally believe that five terms will be sufficient for them. I do
not believe in perpetual sectoral representation. I believe in their
capacity to develop themselves and in their innate talents to organize themselves or to participate in the drama of genuine political struggle.
Madam President, I think this is one way of developing the concepts of selfreliance, self-independence, self-determination and genuine political
maturity.
After five terms, these sectors should now participate in the genuine struggle
for independence, democracy and nationalism.
This is no longer the Marcos era. We are entering a new stage of political
development. This is a new season. So I believe that after five terms, these
sectors would have matured and developed their capacities to govern
themselves to participate in the drama of power play. It is like a baby,
Madam
President. For a while, we have to protect and nurture him. but, thereafter,
he has to have complete independence to mature and to fend for himself.
So, Madam President, I am against perpetual sectoral representation. I am in
favor of three or five terms only. In this way we develop our people; we give
full play to people power in our country.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Garcia be
recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Madam President
I would like to speak in support of permanent sectoral representation. My
main thought or statement is briefly this: Politics and political representation
must not be limited to party politics, but must explore means to make
meaningful and effective the participation of the majority. In other words, I
would
like to advocate different forms of participation. First of all, I would like to
remind ourselves of the context that, in fact, we are not speaking of a
truly proportional, representational Congress. We are speaking of a limited
character. We are speaking not of the 200 seats to be given to political
parties, who basically will try to seek power through territorial
representation, both national, local and district. We are speaking of only 25
seats where
peoples organizations, the four basic sectors, through the party list system,
could be represented in the legislature. Let me argue my case very briefly

through the following reasons and by giving the context.
We understand that what we went through in February was a political
revolution. It is basically unfinished. It will take some time before social
justice
will prevail in the land; there is much work ahead. We also all agree that the
basic problems we face in the country are the problems of poverty, hunger
and land and these are essentially a problem of power. Therefore, the
representation of the majority is essential, if we are to resolve these basic
problems.
The limited sectoral representation we seek is not a gift to the basic sectors.
It is an effort to correct the traditional politics of exclusion, a
politics which largely excludes the majority. The exercise of democracy
demands the organization of citizens. I believe that the horizons will
precisely
open to all those who are not organized as they will see the value of
organization in order to be truly and effectively involved in democratic
political
exercise.
Finally, I believe that permanent sectoral representation will, in fact, result in
the transformation of politics. The nature of our political parties at
present is largely one based on personalities and it is nonideological. I think
we will see the evolution of parties that defend the interest of large
sectors. In this body, we have chosen the bicameral and presidential systems
which, I believe, militate against sectoral representation, and tend to place
power in the hands of parties and leaders that have the resources and the
wherewithal to aspire for political power.
I, therefore, submit that a permanent sectoral representation, although
limited in character, will be a step in the right direction.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized to interpellate Commissioner Aquino.
BISHOP BACANI: I promised Commissioner Romulo that I will ask only one
question, but I have to ask one preliminary question.
Does Commissioner Aquino want the words perpetual reservation to be
provided in the Constitution, which means that from the time of the
ratification of
this Constitution, there will always be reserve seats for the sectors? Or is the
meaning rather the one that is given by Commissioner Quesada that we will
not determine the term for this reservation?
MS. AQUINO: Before I answer that, may I enlist the services of my other
coauthors because anyway, we sink or swim together here, so the
Commissioners might
as well help me. Anyway, we are not incorporating the phrase perpetual
reservation of institutional seats. But according to our amendment, this
Article
would now provide that there will be reservation of institutional seats for the
sectors without necessarily limiting it to the first two terms. In effect,
yes, although we will not provide expressly that it would be perpetually
reserved. Commissioner Bernas may shed light on the matter.
FR. BERNAS: By permanent, we do not mean until the end of the world but
until the Constitution is amended.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much for that clarification.
My main question is this: Even though I am favor of sectoral representation
and of strengthening this, precisely, the perpetuity in the sense that has
been
described above would seem to militate against that strengthening of
sectoral representation. It might mean that the representatives of the sectors
will
become lax in trying to win the approval of the people and may resort to
other means by which they can easily gain the patronage of their own
constituents.
And hence, that is the reason why I am in favor of a proposal like
Commissioner Sarmientos and that of Commissioner de los Reyes. Will the
Commissioner
try to convince me to vote otherwise?
MS. AQUINO: The question is gladly welcome now. Apparently, the bone of
contention is on the matter of permanent reservation of the institutional
seats;
while others would advocate a relative term: three terms or four terms. This
would likewise address the interpellation of Commissioner Sarmiento.
May I proceed to answer the question of Commissioner Bacani? The principle
of self-reliance or self-development in the dynamics of political growth as a
democratic idea is beautifully simple, but it is wildly unrealistic. We are
saying that there is a possibility- in fact, it is predictable that sectoral

groups may graduate into political parties. But it is only possible if certain
conditions are met. Unhappily, these conditions are not present. The
conditions I could think of now are: (1) There should be a high level of
development of political movements. By that I mean specifically the
capability of
political groups to crystallize their ideas, and to project and popularize them.
(2) The logistical and organizational capability of these groups for a
fair chance of success in an electoral struggle. The second condition is that
the level of political development of these groups must be characterized by
no other condition but unity. In other words, unity should be the overriding
factor in the level of development. We know that the political groups now are
very fractious in terms of their ideological differences and variances in
political perspectives. (3) The third condition is the milieu. There is a
requirement for a democratic milieu for the political groups to be able to
develop and consolidate. If there is any peculiar characteristic of Philippine
politics, it is the fact that we do not have a long tradition of popular and
democratic politics. My fear, therefore, is that if we leave it to the
dynamics of political groupings as is the position of Commissioner Sarmiento,
effectively the sectoral politics will be diluted and diffused. Then they
will have to be forced to go into plain power concepts of coalition. This will
diffuse the specificity of the sectoral concerns because the call now is
survival.
We have a lot of colleagues here who are far older than this humble Member,
far more experienced in Philippine politics and I dare them to dispute my
position that for any well-meaning peasant, for example, the road to an
elective position is a tortuous obstacle course. We need money, an effective
political machinery, and we have to draw deep into the arsenal of
propaganda techniques. These are sorely wanting in sectoral organizations,
such that a
free play of political dynamics will render nugatory the possibilities of the full
fruition of sectoral politics. If left to their own devices, it is my
fear that sectoral groups will only fall victims to the antagonist and to their
own inadequacies.
It is my position that the sectors should be provided with permanent
reservation of their representation in Congress.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I think Commissioner Bacani has completed
his interpellations. May I ask that Commissioner Villegas be recognized as
the last
speaker on this subject.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, I would like to speak against permanent

sectoral representation. First of all, in the analogous sector of local
industries,
there is a very unfortunate experience in giving a handicap protection to a
certain sector. We are now faced with the most inefficient industries in the
Asia-Pacific because we have coddled, pampered, babied local industries
over the last 30 years under the pretext of infant industry protection. I am
afraid
that exactly the same thing will happen to these sectors that are to be
pampered, coddled, babied, almost with a condescending attitude that we
are taking,
that they cannot, as Commissioner Ople was saying this morning, rise up to
political maturity, rise up to the majesty of electoral representation. And so,
this is my first reason why I am against permanent sectoral representation.
I question the statement made by Commissioner Aquino that people from the
so-called marginalized groups cannot be politically mature, cannot organize
themselves and cannot raise funds. In fact, in my experience over the last
three years, in dealing with the so-called marginalized groups, I have been so
impressed at their tremendous shrewdness and ability to attain political
objectives. In contrast, representatives from the middle-income class or from
the
rich are so naive and so politically immature compared to them. So I think
giving them nine years to 12 years will be sufficient for them to be able to
rise up to electoral representation.
Secondly and this is also a question asked by Commissioner Lerum the
Commissioner was puzzled why Commissioner Ople said that after these
marginalized
sectors have risen to political maturity, he would still be in favor of the party
list system. That is precisely another reason why we cannot
institutionalize sectors. These marginalized sectors can change in the
dynamics of history. Remember, the poor are not just the poor,
economically
speaking. The poor, as we have already implied, include the youth; whether
or not they are destitute economically, they are still marginalized. Women
are
also marginalized. And not to mention the unborn, the millions of innocent
ones being killed in their mothers wombs. This kind of poor has nothing to
do
with economic destitution. Then, as society develops, those who have been
speaking about ecological balance in many industrialized countries are
voices in
the wilderness. So there has to be individuals who can work for these causes.
That is why the Green Party as mentioned by Commissioner Rosario Braid
became
a very important force in Germany.
As history develops, more and more sectors will become marginalized, so we
have to allow them to enter the political process through the party list
system
when they are sufficiently economically equipped to actually run for election.
Finally, I would like to restate what I said very early in this constitutional
body that I appreciate very much the warning made by Commissioner
Aquino,
that we should be very careful in distinguishing between a leftist and
someone who is pushing for sectoral representation. I definitely appreciate
that
warning. Let us also be very careful, however, that unwittingly we do not fall
into the Marxist paradigm that those who belong to the high-income groups
or
those who become elected into the Senate cannot work as energetically and
as unselfishly for the poor as any representative of the poor. I think it is very
clear if we cite names like Senators Diokno and Taada. They are people who
come from the so-called elite group but who have worked for the poor much
more
unselfishly than some labor leaders who have been scoundrels. I am not
referring to the labor leaders present here but there is no question that
working
for the common good does not know class distinction.
MS. AQUINO: I will have to take strong exception to the misleading
attributions of Commissioner Villegas, and I will try to be very polite and
sober. In
the first place I did not say that the marginalized groups are not capable of
political sophistication or political maturity. What I said was that a
well-meaning sectoral group can be effectively frustrated by the stranglehold
and the deep entrenchment of traditional political parties. What I said was
that I have full faith in the political maturity of the sectoral groups, but I
would look askance at the insidious mechanisms of traditional political
parties. That is all I said.
On the matter of the Marxist aberration, the concept of sectoral
representation is not just a Marxist aberration. It is the pressing imperative of
social
justice.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Padilla would like to say a few words.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am in favor of giving the sectors some
representation in the House but not in a permanent way or, as stated by
Commissioner
Bernas, until the Constitution is amended. We are trying to draft a
Constitution that will not only be for a few years. So if the Constitution is not
amended, then this provision may become permanent.
Madam President, I have been listening throughout the morning and this
afternoon and I would like to say that we should not be fomenting class
distinctions, especially between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the
underprivileged, the over-and-or-under marginal level. I agree with the
Magsaysay dictum or maxim that Those who have less in life should have
more in law. But the situation of the sectoral groups, say, for lack of
organization or unification, should be the object of evolution towards more
organization and more unity among themselves. I am reminded of the
decalogue of
President Lincoln which states: You cannot help the poor by destroying the
rich. And the rich are not always identical with the powerful, especially the
powerful in politics. What we need is more productivity to develop our
economy, not so much the exercise of power through representation. What
will help
the poor, the underprivileged or the so-called marginal sector is more
productivity rather than political power by one class even as against the
other.
That is the-reason why I suggested even in the Preamble of the Constitution
to insert the word PROGRESS or PROSPERITY, because increased or
additional
productivity will create more wealth, will mean more income not only for the
rich but also for the poor, and a better life for all of us, under the
guidance of Divine Providence.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Suarez would like to be recognized.

As one of the voices of the voiceless, the eyes of the blind, the ears of the
deaf and the crutches of the crippled, I feel rather strongly that our
marginalized sectors deserve permanent representation in the legislature.
From the time this matter came up for discussion, I have always espoused
the
setting aside, in a permanent character, of a number of seats for the
marginalized sectors of our society. We can call it gifting if we wish. If it be
so, should we not present this gift to our people with an open heart and
without restrictions?
Are we now turning out to be constitutional Indian givers?
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Bernas would like to be recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, just one minute.
I would like to correct any impression which may have been made that this
is an effort to foment class conflict. This is not. This is merely a
recognition of the fact that there are vast numbers of underprivileged. We
are not fomenting anything. We are just recognizing it and we are hoping to
give
them better protection of the law greater protection than what is given to
those who have more.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I believe we are ready to vote by ballot.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will vote by ballot.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to request that we vote by
raising of hands, not by ballot.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a request from the Floor Leader that it be by ballot.
MR. GASCON: I feel that in this issue, we should not be hiding anything from
the people.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, that is what I was made to understand, that
the majority would like to vote by ballot.
THE PRESIDENT: So, it will be by ballot.

I wish to clarify that we will vote on the first portion of Commissioner
Aquinos amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, but the first portion can only be best appreciated by also
voting on the slashed paragraph which we propose should be transposed to
the
Article on Transitory Provisions, such that they are intimately coupled.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Commissioners have copies of the proposed
amendment?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I raise a parliamentary inquiry?
MR. OPLE: Under the Rules of this House, is there any legal support to a
secret ballot on any issue?
MR. ROMULO: There is none in the Rules, Madam President; but, as we all
know, we have been doing this with regard to many issues.
If the body wishes to put it to a vote, the Acting Floor Leader has no
objection.
MR. OPLE: I would like to join Commissioner Gascon in his request for an
open voting.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President, I would like to put this to a motion
that we divide the House on whether we should have secret balloting or open
voting.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, we have done this secret balloting in the
past, but I feel we should not continue with such voting, especially in crucial
issues because I think we owe it to the people, since we were not elected, to
tell them where we really stand and not hide anything from them.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we put it to a vote whether we shall vote by secret
ballot or by the raising of hand?
Those in favor of voting by the raising of hand, please raise their hand.
Those in favor of secret balloting, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their hand.)
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I explain my vote in just two minutes?
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, this is out of the Rules, but anyway, Commissioner
Colayco may do so.
COMMISSIONER COLAYCO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. COLAYCO: The statement has been made that since we were not
elected we should show our true colors. What color have we who voted
against red, white
or blue? I believe this is an indirect form of coercion. We have followed that
way of voting for at least five or six times. Why is it that some sectors in
this room insist that we do not vote in private? That is my question.
The results show 26 in favor of voting by the raising of hand, and 5 in favor
of voting by secret ballot; so we will vote by the raising of hand.
The Chair asks Commissioner Aquino to please restate her amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I just want to make of record that I abstained
from voting because from my personal point of view, it is immaterial either
way.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino may now restate her amendment.
MS. AQUINO: On page 1, Section 5, delete on line 29 the phrase from the
sectors and party list and substitute it with the following: ELECTED
THROUGH A
PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL
PARTIES OR, ORGANIZATIONS, AS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL
CONSTITUTE TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. TWENTY-FIVE OF THE SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST
FILLED BY ELECTION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT,
URBAN POOR, WOMEN AND YOUTH SECTORS.
The paragraph that would be transposed to the Article on Transitory
Provisions will read: FOR THE FIRST TERM OF CONGRESS FOLLOWING THE
ADOPTION OF THIS
CONSTITUTION THE SECTORAL REPRESENTATIVES PROVIDED FOR IN
SECTION 5 SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT FROM THE LIST OF

NOMINEES SUBMITTED BY THE SECTORS.
MR. RODRIGO: I think we should just vote on the issue of whether the
sectoral representation will be permanent in the sense that unless the
Constitution is
amended to remove this then there will always be sectoral representation, or
whether a time limit should be incorporated in this provision.
THE PRESIDENT: We will leave that to the proponent. We will ask
Commissioner Aquino to make the decision as to how she would want her
proposed amendment to
be voted upon.
MR. RODRIGO: But that was the subject of the debate, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is why the Chair is asking Commissioner Aquino to
state her preference on this matter.
MS. AQUINO: I am yielding to the better judgment of Commissioner Rodrigo.
It is just that I was constrained to present it because I thought the
amendment
can better be appreciated in the context of this paragraph.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, that was the agreement during the caucus,
and that is the issue which I stated. So, with all due respect, I feel that the
issue we should vote on is whether or not we will have permanent sectoral
seats.
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of permanent sectoral seats in the House of
Representatives, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 19 votes in favor of the amendment and 22 against; the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Aquino on that particular point is
lost.

It was 4:30 p.m.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I humbly propose a happy
compromise between permanent reserve seats and the principles of selfreliance and
independence. I suggest that between the phrases AND PROVIDED FURTHER
THAT FOR THE and AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION,
insert THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS instead of TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
MR. RODRIGO: I have an amendment to the amendment. Instead of the
phrase RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION it should be AFTER THE
ENACTMENT OF THE
IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION.
MR. SARMIENTO: I have no objection to the proposed amendment to my
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair did not get it. The Commissioner has no
objection?
MR. SARMIENTO: I have no objection, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: May we seek clarification from Commissioner Rodrigo on one

point only? When the Commissioner made that suggestion, I take it that if
the
sectoral representatives to the first Congress would be appointed, that term
will not be counted.
MR. RODRIGO: No.
MR. SUAREZ: So after that, there will be three terms as proposed by
Commissioner Sarmiento. Is that the meaning of the proposal? I just want to
make it
clear.
MR. RODRIGO: I do not have in mind any appointive Member of Congress. As
a matter of fact, I would be against appointing sectoral representatives. I
think
they should be elected in accordance with the law to be enacted by
Congress.
MR. RODRIGO: I presented the amendment because it is possible that at the
first election after the ratification of the Constitution, there being no
Congress yet, there can be no party list or sectoral candidates. Also, there
can be no enabling legislation yet.
MR. OPLE: Will the Gentleman yield to a question?
MR. RODRIGO: Certainly.
MR. OPLE: If we follow this proposal, will this foreclose the possibility of an
ordinance to be appended to the Constitution so that sectoral
representation will become executory instead of waiting for Congress to
convene?
MR. RODRIGO: I do not have that in mind because it is very remote that we
can append an ordinance to the Constitution going into the details of the
mechanics of such election. But if there should be, then I am willing to make
provisions for that because this is premised on no ordinance, no
appointment.
MR. OPLE: I would rather that if we want them represented right there in the
first Congress which will sit sometime on June 30 or July 1 following the
first local and national elections which according to the Committee on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions have been determined to take place
not
earlier than 60 days and not later than 90 days from the ratification of the
Constitution then we should seriously consider an ordinance that will make
sectoral representation executory.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino had earlier stated that she was
proposing an amendment to be provided in the Transitory Provisions. I do not
know if she
has given that up.
May we hear from Commissioner Aquino.
MS. AQUINO: No, Madam President, in fact I approached Commissioner
Rodrigo about it and thought of the possibility of a merger between his
proposal and our
groups position on the matter, that this be provided in the Article on
Transitory Provisions that the first Congress would accommodate sectoral
representatives who are appointed by the President from the list of nominees
of the sectors.
MR. OPLE: That will be a satisfactory alternative for me in lieu of an
ordinance, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Actually, the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Sarmiento was discussed with the proponents. That is the reason why it
states THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS rather than FIRST THREE TERMS. If for any reason
at all, the first Congress convenes and there has been no executive order or
ordinance appended to the Constitution, then we count the three
consecutive terms from the first time the sectoral representatives actually
sit.
The rest of the proposal provides: SHALL BE FILLED BY SELECTION OR
ELECTION, so that would cover the instance that Commissioner Aquino seeks
to provide for
in the Transitory Provisions.
MR. RODRIGO: I think we are all agreed on the objective. It is a matter of

wording the amendment. When I filed my amendment, I was under the
impression
that if the three terms will start from the ratification of this Constitution, it is
then possible that in the first term after the ratification, the
sectoral candidates are not yet qualified, in which case only two terms will be
left for them.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, in that case then, the provision shall not run
yet, because it says FIRST THREE CONSECUTIVE. That is why we took out
the
word FIRST. We changed that to THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
MR. RODRIGO: So, that means the three consecutive terms will start from the
election or selection of sectoral candidates who are already qualified to be
candidates. Is that it?
MR. MONSOD: From the selection or election as may be provided by law. If
they had not been selected or elected, then the three terms will not yet run.
MR. RODRIGO: If that is clear on the record, I withdraw my amendment to the
amendment.
MR. MONSOD: As it is, the issue is the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Sarmiento to my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President; it is accepted.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, there are no other speakers anymore.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote on this now?
MR. SARMIENTO: May I just be clarified, because there were those who
suggested for the inclusion of WOMEN AND INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES. May I just

know if this will be included in our voting?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Chair is just thinking, because we have here a
proposed amendment of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move that we break into two parts this
clause starting with AND PROVIDED FURTHER. We start with the first item
to be
voted upon by the body; that is, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT FOR THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION. I
move that we vote on
this item, Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: May I make another proposal that instead of THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS, put FOUR CONSECUTIVE TERMS. May we vote on this
matter first.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we have accepted the amendment of
Commissioner Sarmiento. May we request that we vote on that first.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Later on if Commissioner Rosario Braid insists, the
Commissioner can propose the other amendment.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento,
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, we voted on the proviso on the
condition that we could have a chance to ask the Commissioners if they are
in favor of
four terms instead of three.

MR. MONSOD: I just want to make a manifestation that the three consecutive
terms assuming that the first Congress will already have sectoral
representation is a minimum of eight years and a maximum of 11 years
depending on how we synchronize on the first election.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Rosario Braid still insisting on four years?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of Commissioner Rosario Braids amendment
will please raise their hand.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, this would amount to a reconsideration of
the approval of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: No, we are just asking the body to clarify the situation.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, we seem to be a little confused.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We were not able to count those who are in favor of four
terms. Those who are in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Rosario
Braid,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we move then to the second item
regarding the inclusion of other sectors other than those provided in the
compromised
agreement. The original sectors would include labor, peasant, urban poor
and youth sectors.
We have this suggestion that we include indigenous cultural communities
and women.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum was also suggesting the number 25.
Is the Gentleman insisting on that or does he want to increase the number?
MR. LERUM: Madam President, my suggestion will depend on whether or not

we are going to increase the number. If we maintain the same number, then
there is
no need to increase the sectoral representatives.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the proposed amendment that is before us now is the
inclusion of women and indigenous communities.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I ask a question?
MR. BENGZON: Just for the record, what about the fishermen, are they
included in the classification of labor or peasants?
THE PRESIDENT: May we have Commissioner Monsod answer that, please?
MR. MONSOD: My understanding from those who have studied it is that they
are included in the classification of peasants.
MR. SARMIENTO: I have this additional information, Madam President.
As of January 1986, it is estimated that there are 20 million members of the
agricultural sector. This figure includes small fishermen who number 2.2
million.
MR. RODRIGO: My amendment to the amendment is after WOMEN, add the
phrase AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. SARMIENTO: No objection, Madam President.
REV. RIGOS: After AS PROVIDED BY LAW, I propose to add the phrase
EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will Commissioner Sarmiento entertain an
amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Can he consider including war veterans in his classification?

I also speak for Commissioner Crispino de Castro. There are 600,000
veterans of World War II, but the term veterans is not limited to them. The
veterans
of all wars subsequent to World War II are also included, including the
veterans of future wars.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I inform the honorable
Commissioner that we cannot accept the amendment. If we accept that
amendment, then we open the
floodgates for more sectors like the elderly, represented by Commissioner
Rodrigo and others.
I wanted to discharge my obligation and that of General de Castro to the
veterans.
MR. UKA: May I also speak? I support the veterans.
How about adding the third sex sector?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, if Congress in their collective wisdom
decides to include the third sex, why not? After all, we have the provision,
AND
SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. The celibates, for
example, we leave that to Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us go back to the amendment by insertion of
Commissioner Rigos.
Is the amendment accepted by the proponent?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I was thinking that the more we
enumerate . . .
THE PRESIDENT: It is an exception.
MR. MONSOD: No, because I have not even responded to the amendment of
Commissioner Sarmiento. The more we enumerate, the more we may
exclude. So, I was
wondering if we already have the catch-all phrase AND SUCH OTHER
SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. Would that not cover a lot of
sectors that would like
to be specifically mentioned? I believe teachers was also mentioned
earlier. I was wondering whether the proponent could accept the omnibus
phrase, AND
SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. SARMIENTO: It was I who suggested the inclusion of teachers but
because we have this catch-all provision AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS
MAY BE PROVIDED
BY LAW I withdraw my suggestion in favor of the suggestion of
Commissioners Bennagen and Nieva, and the Honorable President for the
inclusion of
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL MINORITIES AND WOMEN. Then, include the catchall provision, AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, just one more clarification.
MR. MAAMBONG: Could somebody please explain to me what urban poor
means? Is there any kind of poor?
MR. SARMIENTO: Urban poor refers to those persons who are staying in the
urban areas and urban centers; to be clear about it, urban poor refers to the
so-called squatters.
MR. MAAMBONG: Why do we have to specify urban poor? If one is poor,
whether he is rural or urban, he is poor.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I briefly explain the reason for the inclusion of urban
poor?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: The statistics on the number of urban poor vary. Some say
there are eight million; some, two million. It should perhaps be safe to go
half-way and set it at five million, excluding those that have been transferred
to various relocation areas in the country. Around 65 percent of the urban
poor live in public lands and are so-called squatters. Around 2.5 million are
found in the Metro Manila area. Most of them are former peasants, who,
unable
to bear the poverty and lack of economic opportunities in the rural areas,
were lured to the cities. There they find themselves living in the shanties of
overcrowded squatter colonies perpetually searching and begging for work,
and constantly threatened by the prospect of demolition and ejection.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just one very short clarification. Could the representative of
the urban poor also represent the rural poor?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes.

VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now?
Sarmiento, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand )
The results show 29 votes in favor and one against; the proposed
MR. MONSOD: Just a clarification, Madam President. Was the amendment of
Commissioner Rodrigo also included in that vote?
THE PRESIDENT: It was included.
REV. RIGOS: What happened to my proposed amendment? I proposed it three
times but somehow it has always been overlooked. While every group wants
to get in,
I would like the religious group to get out.
MR. ROMULO: That was included, Madam President, because it was accepted
by Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: That was included.
REV. RIGOS: Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, may I state for the record that I voted
against because the provision is already flooded with too many
enumerations.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I move that we now go to the term of office
of the Senator.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee was not yet asked what would be its reaction to
the proposed amendment. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair saw that the Gentleman was voting.
MR. DAVIDE: We voted but since this is supposed to be an amendment to the
committee report, after this amendment was further amended, the
Committee should
still have to react.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the Commissioners reaction now?
MR. DAVIDE: Before reacting, I would just read what has been approved, if
this is accurate. On line 29, page 1, after the words shall be, insert the
following: ELECTED THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF REGISTERED
NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS, AS
PROVIDED BY LAW. THE PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, my amendment continues and says
PROVIDED THAT . . .
MR. DAVIDE: We would rather request that the words AND PROVIDED,
FURTHER, THAT be deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: How shall it read now?
MR. DAVIDE: After REPRESENTATIVES we a period (.) then, FOR THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION,
TWENTY-FIVE OF THE
SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED BY
SELECTION OR ELECTION FROM THE LABOR . . .
MR. MONSOD: AS PROVIDED BY LAW, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: There was another PROVIDED FOR BY LAW that was approved
earlier.
MR. MONSOD: May I explain, Madam President? If we take AS PROVIDED BY
LAW out, then the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW will only refer to
the
sectors. What we want is that the phrase AS PROVIDED BY LAW also refer
to the election or selection method.
MR. DAVIDE: I will proceed. SHALL BE FILLED BY SELECTION OR ELECTION,
AS PROVIDED BY LAW, FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR,
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES, WOMEN, YOUTH AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW, EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR.
Is that the entire proposal?
MR. VILLACORTA: May I just seek clarification on the Rigos prohibition about
religious groups before the Committee accepts the amendment? May I ask
Commissioner Rigos certain questions for the enrichment of the record,
Madam President?
REV. RIGOS: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: When the Commissioner proposed EXCEPT RELIGIOUS
GROUPS, he is not, of course, prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may
be elected
by, say, the indigenous community sector to represent their group.
REV. RIGOS: Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who represents the
Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church, et cetera.
MR. VILLACORTA: Then the Gentlemans answer to my question would be
positive. In other words, he would not want an imam, priest or pastor to be
one of the
representatives of any of the sector.
REV. RIGOS: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: In other words, a priest in the Cordillera delegation, for

example, would not be allowed under this prohibition to be a representative
of
the indigenous community sector.
REV. RIGOS: Not at all, because that phrase is not representing the religious
sector.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I think this is class legislation and
against the constitutional principle that the exercise of political rights of
citizens should not be limited by his religion.
I voted in favor of the Rigos resolution on the understanding that we shall not
provide for a religious sector; but now the interpretation of Commissioner
Rigos is different.
REV. RIGOS: Mukhang hindi tayo nagkakaintindihan dito.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see; he will allow. In that case, I withdraw.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Chairman Davide, is this clear now?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President, but the Committee would move for a
transposition of the first AS PROVIDED BY LAW after ELECTION. The
proposal of the
Committee is to place AS PROVIDED BY LAW at the end of the second from
the last line between the words FILLED and BY so that the second line will
read as follows: SHALL BE FILLED, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, BY SELECTION OR
ELECTION FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR, INDIGENOUS
CULTURAL COMMUNITIES,
WOMEN, YOUTH AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW,
EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that clear? Does the Chairman need another vote on that?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee accepts the amendment, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee accepts the amendment.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand.
hand.)
The results show 32 votes in favor and none against; the amendment is
approved.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Legislative Committee is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: As a consequence, on page 2 of the amended committee report,
Committee Report No. 22, lines 1 to 3 should now be deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right; they would now be deleted.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, consequently on page 4, line 14, we propose
to delete the slash (/) and the word or in and/or at the end of the line. It
should read political parties and sectors represented therein, with the
interpretation that the political parties referred to are the regular political
parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party list
system.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposal of the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Should we not be more explicit and say, on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS
REPRESENTED OR UNDER THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM?
MR. DAVIDE: What about the sectors?
MR. MONSOD: The sectors are part of the party list system because we
defined on page I the party list system as registered national, regional or
sectoral
organizations.
MR. DAVIDE: We accept the proposal with the deletion of the word sectors
on line 15 then. So, beginning on line 13, the provision will now read: the
case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERED
UNDER THE
PARTY LIST SYSTEM represented therein. The senior justice in the Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
MR. DAVIDE: As a consequence of the earlier amendment, the Committee
would also propose an amendment on the same page, line 20. After parties
on line 20,
add the phrase: AND PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERED UNDER THE
PARTY LIST SYSTEM, to be followed by the deletion of the words or sectors
on line 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular proposed
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee will also propose the following
amendments on Section 3, page 1, and Section 6, page 6 for the sole
purpose of
aligning the provisions therein with what the Commission had approved in
the matter of the term and the prohibition on reelections.
So, the Committee would propose to substitute Section 3 on page 1 with the
following provision, copies of which had been distributed earlier: THE TERM
OF
OFFICE OF THE SENATORS SHALL BE SIX YEARS AND SHALL COMMENCE,
UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, AT NOON ON THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE
NEXT FOLLOWING THEIR
ELECTION.
NO SENATOR SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN
INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE FOR THE FULL TERM FOR
WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
The Committee moves for its approval.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
MR. GASCON: I would like to ask a question with regard to the issue after the
second term. We will allow the Senator to rest for a period of time before he
can run again?

MR. GASCON: And the question that we left behind before if the
Gentleman will remember was: How long will that period of rest be? Will it
be one
election which is three years or one term which is six years?
MR. DAVIDE: If the Gentleman will remember, Commissioner Rodrigo
expressed the view that during the election following the expiration of the
first 12
years, whether such election will be on the third year or on the sixth year
thereafter, this particular member of the Senate can run. So, it is not really
a period of hibernation for six years. That was the Committees stand.
MR. GASCON: So, effectively, the period of rest would be three years at the
least.
MR. MAAMBONG: Could I address the clarificatory question to the
Committee? This term voluntary renunciation does not only appear in
Section 3; it appears
in Section 6.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: It is also a recurring phrase all over the Constitution. Could
the Committee please enlighten us exactly what voluntary renunciation
means?
Is this akin to abandonment?
MR. DAVIDE: Abandonment is voluntary. In other words, he cannot
circumvent the restriction by merely resigning at any given time on the
second term.
MR. MAAMBONG: Is the Committee saying that the term voluntary
renunciation is more general than abandonment and resignation?
MR. DAVIDE: It is more general, more embracing.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions on Section 3?
approved.
Let us go to Section 6.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, before we go to Section 6, I do not know
if I was not attentive when Section 5 was previously taken up, but I would
just
like to call the attention of the Committee to line 29 of Section 5, page 1,
where it reads: shall be elected from the sectors and party list.
Does this need some amendments in line with the realignment of the other
sections?
MR. DAVIDE: This has already been amended by the Monsod et al.
amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: How does it read now?
MR. DAVIDE: Beginning on line 29, the provision reads: SHALL BE ELECTED
THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM OR REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND
SECTORAL PARTIES
OR ORGANIZATIONS, AS PROVIDED BY LAW. The party list representatives
shall constitute twenty percent of the total membership of the House of
Representatives. For the three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution twenty-five of the seats allocated to party list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election
from the labor, peasant, urban poor, youth, indigenous cultural communities,
women and such other sectors as may be provided by law except the
religious sector.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I request that the word the before
the words three consecutive terms be deleted because then, we will really
start
applying it beginning July, 1987. The reason we took up the word first was
precisely to avoid a situation where they will have seats but there will be
nobody there.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it will only read: for three consecutive terms?
MR. DAVIDE: I would seek for a ruling of the Chair on this because this was
earlier approved by the body.
MR. MONSOD: But, Madam President, that was precisely the discussion and
question between Commissioner Rodrigo and myself. The amendment that I
accepted
from Commissioner Sarmiento did not have the word the.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee will agree to its deletion.
MR. BENNAGEN: Just a simple question to the Committee for clarification.
MR. BENNAGEN: Reference is made to registered national and sectoral
organizations. Is registered here referring merely to registration with the
COMELEC
or also registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission?
MR. DAVIDE: In the light of the approved Article on Constitutional
Commissions, more particularly the COMELEC, the Committee persists that
this refers to
registration in the COMELEC.
MR. BENNAGEN: Not the SEC?
MR. DAVIDE: No, not necessarily.
MR. DAVIDE: May we now proceed to Section 6, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on Section 6.
MR. DAVIDE: Not yet, Madam President. There was a request for the deletion
of the word the preceding three consecutive terms which the Committee
endorses.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the elimination of the word the
before the words three consecutive terms? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee proposes to substitute the present wording of
Section 5 with the following: THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
ELECTED FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS WHICH SHALL BEGIN, UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, AT NOON ON THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE NEXT
FOLLOWING THEIR ELECTION.
NO MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL SERVE FOR MORE
THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS. VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF THE
OFFICE FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY OF
THE SERVICE FOR A FULL TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
The Committee moves for its approval.
May we ask a clarificatory question regarding the interpretation of the
provisions in Sections 3 and 6 in relation to Section 9 regarding the
disqualification on the part of the Senator to run for two consecutive terms,
and in the case of the Members of the House of Representatives, for three
consecutive terms. For example, a special election is called for a Senator,
and the Senator newly elected would have to serve the unexpired portion of
the
term. Would that mean that serving the unexpired portion of the term is
already considered one term? So, half a term, which is actually the correct
statement, plus one term would disqualify the Senator concerned from
running? Is that the meaning of this provision on disqualification, Madam
President?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because we speak of term, and if there is a special
election, he will serve only for the unexpired portion of that particular term
plus
one more term for the Senator and two more terms for the Members of the
Lower House.
MR. PADILLA: I notice under Section 3 the phrase and shall commence
unless otherwise provided by law at noon on the 30th day of June, next
following their
election. Section 6 also has the words which shall begin and I suppose it
means the same thing as in Section 3; also unless otherwise provided by
law
at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election. Section 3 also
has the same phrase voluntary renunciation as in Section 6. Can we not,
therefore, simplify to avoid repetitions?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we already approved Section 3.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, this is to correlate The term of office of the Senators shall
be six years. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms.
That is for Section 3. Section 6 states: THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE ELECTED FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS . . . NO
MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS. Then comes another paragraph which states: A
TERM OF THREE YEARS WHICH SHALL
BEGIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, AT NOON ON THE 30TH DAY
OF JUNE NEXT FOLLOWING THEIR ELECTION. Then, VOLUNTARY
RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE FOR
ANY LENGTH OF TIME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN
THE CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE FOR A FULL TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS
ELECTED. This is a matter
of form; it is not an amendment of substance. The Committee makes our
Constitution more formal, more cohesive, and other words can be added
thereto. In
other words, the idea is to avoid the repetition of the same clauses or words.
The Committee will consider this as a matter of form, but instead of leaving
it to the Committee on Style, perhaps we should . . .
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee, Madam President, moves that the particular
matter be referred to the Style Committee with that observation as guide to
the
Committee on Style to reformulate the two sections.
MR. PADILLA: But if there is no objection on the part of the Committee, it is
better that it be approved by the body.
MR. OPLE: This question is addressed both to the Committee and to
Commissioner Monsod, who is an authority on budgetary matters. I just want
to find out if
noontime of June 30 is a common date for the beginning of the term of the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. If this is so, is there
a correlation with the fiscal year? As I remember it, the government used to
go on a fiscal year beginning July 1, and then this was changed to a calendar
year budget beginning January 1. If the two Houses of Congress take their
oath to signal the beginning of their terms on June 30 and the fiscal year for
the budget is actually a calendar year beginning January 1, then there will be
no opportunity for them to influence the priorities of government through a
budget because by that time the budget shall have already been running for
the calendar year. Will this, therefore, eventually require returning to the
fiscal year beginning July 1?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: If the Gentleman will take note of Section 10, page 3, the
Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its
regular
session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in
session for such number of days as it may determine until 30 days before the
opening of its next regular session.
It would mean, therefore, that the fiscal year is actually the calendar year
because upon the commencement of the regular session on the fourth
Monday of
July, the body will discuss or will give priority to the budget for the
succeeding year. So, for instance, starting the fourth Monday of July 1987,
the
body will have to decide on the budget for 1988, if we reckon now the
election to be in May, or earlier, of 1987.
MR. OPLE: That is to say that they will be governed by the existing budget
before their assumption to office.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now on Section 6?
MR. DAVIDE: We are ready but there was a proposal by Commissioner Padilla,
and the suggestion of the Committee is to leave this to the Style Committee
headed by Commissioner Rodrigo. If we now incorporate Sections 3 and 6, it
will dislocate the order of the sectioning of the entire Article on the
Legislative Department. So, we request that that matter be left entirely to

the Style Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Padilla agree?
MR. PADILLA: No, I am not satisfied, Madam President. I would prefer the
body to vote on the simplification and the clarification, without too many
repetitions.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, it will be noted that there are two intervening
sections, Sections 4 and 5, and which will be totally affected by any
combination of Sections 3 and 6.
MR. PADILLA: After Section 3, Section 6 can come in at Section 5, and the
others can be renumbered.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will submit to a vote whether the body sustains the
report and recommendation of the Legislative Committee that these
observations of
Commissioner Padilla be referred to the Style Committee.
As many as are in favor of the report and recommendation of the Committee
on the Legislative please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
hand.)
The results show 24 votes in favor and one against; the recommendation of
the Committee is accepted by the body.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the body has not yet acted on Section 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am sorry.
MR. DAVIDE: May we place it to a vote?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Section 6 was read by the Chairman of the Committee on
the Legislative.
As many as are in favor of Section 6, as recommended by the Committee,

hand.)
The results show 28 votes in favor and none against, Section 6 is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just one more clarification. recall that we approved an
amendment by addition on Section 5 which reads: where a city is entitled to
more
than one representative they shall be elected at large.
MR. DAVIDE: That amendment was not approved; it was withdrawn because
the matter can be taken up in the ordinance to be appended to the
Constitution in the
matter of districting the seats.
MR. MAAMBONG: I was just about to ask this question because I understand
the Commission on Elections has submitted a redistricting of cities.
MR. DAVIDE: A proposal.
MR. MAAMBONG: A proposal, yes. Just one more point. In Section 9, which we
have already approved, there is a provision in case a vacancy arises in the
Senate or in the House of Representatives 18 months or more before a
regular election. However, I notice that Section 10 of the Article on the
Executive,
which we have approved reads:
No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within 180 days
before the date of the next presidential election.
Does the Gentleman not feel that we should realign this provision because in
the case of vacancy in the House of Representatives, we can call a special
election at least 18 months or more, whereas in the case of the President, it
is only 180 days? We should even have a shorter period in the case of
vacancy
in the House of Representatives because we are supposed to have a threeyear term for that office while the term for the office of the President is
supposed to be six years.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.

MR. MAAMBONG: I wonder if the Chairman of this Committee and the
Chairman of the Executive Committee could put their acts together and find
a happy
compromise so that we can realign these provisions. Would that be all right,
Madam President?
MR. DAVIDE: The vacancy contemplated in Section 9 is a vacancy occurring
18 months or more before a regular election. We feel that it is not necessary
for
the reason that, first of all, there are many who are in the Senate and there
are many more in the Lower House, whereas in the matter of the presidency,
there is really an exigency which would necessitate an immediate filling up
because it is the entire Philippines that will be involved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Is the Gentleman saying that these two provisions need not
be harmonized?
MR. DAVIDE: These need not be harmonized because of the composition of
the position and, secondly, because of the very nature of the position
involved.
MR. MAAMBONG: I just wanted to call the Gentlemans attention to that and
the attention of the Chairman of the Committee on the Executive.
THE PRESIDENT: Chairman Davide, is there any other matter pending in your
Committee?
MR. GASCON: During the suspension, I was talking to Commissioner Lerum
and I believe he was going to propose an amendment to Section 2. I was
wondering if
he will still propose such an amendment because if he does not, I will be
proposing my own amendment to Section 2.
MR. LERUM: I have made a reservation to submit an amendment on Section

2. On line 13, after Philippines, delete the words as may and insert the
following: EXCEPT FOUR TO REPRESENT THE SECTORS WHOSE ELECTION
SHALL. So, the section, as amended, shall read as follows: The Senate shall
be composed of
twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of
the Philippines, EXCEPT FOUR TO REPRESENT THE SECTORS WHOSE
ELECTION SHALL be
provided by law. The reason for this amendment is to complement the
provision in Section 5 which provides for sectoral representation. We believe
that if
the sectors will be given representation in the House, they should also be
given representation in the Senate. As I said this morning, that is part of the
promise of the President made to the labor sector on May 1, 1986.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee is rather confused by the proposal, if it will not
affect the total membership. The total membership is 24 to be elected at
large
by the qualified voters of the Philippines. With that particular exception, it is
not determined how many of the 24 will be represented in the Senate.
Besides, we feel that since the Senate is to be elected at large, any number
beyond 24 might not be really conducive to a higher body as the Senate.
MR. LERUM: If that is the objection, this amendment will not increase the
membership of the Senate because the four will be taken from the 24 so
that, in
effect, 20 will be elected at large and four will be selected from the sectors,
as may be provided by law.
MR. DAVIDE: We would rather submit it to a vote by the Commission, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman kindly read again his proposed
amendment on Section 2?
MR. LERUM: As amended, Section 2 will read as follows: The Senate shall be
composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the
qualified
voters of the Philippines, EXCEPT FOUR, TO REPRESENT THE SECTORS
WHOSE ELECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

May I ask one clarificatory question, Madam President?
MR. LERUM: Willingly.
MR. SUAREZ: As I understand it, under this section and other sections, there
will be elections for the Senate at large but this will refer only to the 20
Senators under the proposal of the Gentleman.
MR. LERUM: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: The four would be elected or selected from the sectors in the
manner provided by law.
MR. LERUM: That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ: If the situation is that there will be 12 Senators to be elected
during every election for the Senate, I assume there will be only two from the
sectors every election or selection, as the case may be.
MR. SUAREZ: So, there will be 10 Senators to be elected at large and two to
be selected or elected from the sectors as the case may be. Is that the
meaning
of this?
MR. LERUM: Will the Gentleman kindly repeat his question?
MR. SUAREZ: Let us say, there is an election for 12 Senators, but the 10
would have to be elected at large and the two must come from the sectors.
Is my
understanding of the Gentlemans proposal correct?
MR. RODRIGO: May I make a short observation on this?
When I opted for a bicameral system, I expressly, stated that I would favor a
bicameral system if the Senators are elected nationally, nationwide or at
large, and I gave my reasons for this. One is that the Senators will look at
issues on a national scale since they are national leaders. Since the Senators
are elected by the whole country, they win or lose by hundreds of thousands
of votes, if not by millions of votes, and so they are less susceptible to
pressure. If we dilute this with four elected by sectors, the philosophy behind
establishing a Senate, an Upper House, would be lost insofar as these four
are concerned. I am also thinking that in order to win as Senator, he will have
to be in the first 12 on top of the list since he is elected at large. From
experience, the last among those who would win would garner, maybe,
about more than six million votes. But if we vote by sector, it is possible that
a
sectoral Senator might win with only 500,000 votes because the system of
election is different. This is contrary to the philosophy of a Senate elected at
large which motivated me, and I think many others, to vote for a bicameral
legislature. I think it is enough that we have the sectoral representatives in
the House of Representatives.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I comment on that?
MR. LERUM: I do not agree with the assumption that senators cannot be
pressured. I have seen many senators who have been pressured. So, that
assumption is
not correct. I do not also agree with the assumption that when the
Gentleman proposed the creation of the Senate, that view was shared by
everybody. I do
not think that is so. As a matter of fact, we voted against having a bicameral
legislature. That is the Gentlemans assumption, but I do not agree with his
assumption that is why I am proposing this amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Will the proponent answer some questions please?
MR. LERUM: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: The Gentleman is asking for four out of 24, is that right?
MR. DE CASTRO: If we compute that, that is 16 percent of 24. Is that correct?
MR. LERUM: That is correct. We can increase that to 20, if the Gentleman is
agreeable.
MR. DE CASTRO: No, I am still on the computation. Of the 250, the
Gentleman is asking for 20 percent, is he not?
MR. LERUM: Is the Gentleman referring to the House of Representatives?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. LERUM: It is already agreed on. It is on record already, so please do not
ask me something on the record.
MR. DE CASTRO: Of the 250, the Gentleman is asking for 20. That is the one
agreed on, is it not?
MR. LERUM: The records show that that is so.
MR. DE CASTRO: If we compute 250 in relation to 24, that is 12 percent.
Madam President, 250 is about nine times of 24. If we multiply 16 percent by
9,
that is 136 percent. Does the Gentleman not think that that is a little over
the required percentage of those who will be chosen and not elected for the
first time? cdasia
MR. LERUM: The way the Gentleman computes it, he does not seem to agree.
So, what is the Gentlemans suggestion?
MR. DE CASTRO: I am only computing; I am not prepared for any suggestion.
MR. LERUM: As far as we are concerned, we are interested in getting sectoral
representation in the Senate. If the Gentleman is making the suggestion that
that will make it possible, we are willing to listen to him.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am just informing the body that the four out of 24 is 16
percent of 24. If we relate that mathematically, 250 divided by 24 is about
nine
times; 16 percent times 9 equals 136 percent representation in the Senate in
relation to the House. This is just to inform the body of the mathematics of
this.
MR. LERUM: So, it is not a question, after all.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now? What is the reaction of the
Committee? Will the Committee refer it to the body?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee prefers to have the same voted by the body.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I object to the proposed amendment not
because I have been elected Senator for three terms in the past but because
all
sectors are represented nationwide. So, the Senators who are elected at
large count on the majority of all the votes of all registered voters throughout
the country. A nationwide election should no longer distinguish between the
people under the parties or some sectoral groups because all qualified and
registered voters already vote for the Senators in a senatorial election
nationwide.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote on this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Lerum?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment has been read by Commissioner
Lerum.
(Few Members raised their hand.)
their hand.)
is lost.
MR. GASCON: I would like to propose an amendment. On Section 2, line 12,
after the word large put the phrase THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM. So,
the
provision will read: The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators
who shall be elected at large THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM by the
qualified
voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law. During the period of

amendments, I asked the Committee if this is a possibility and the answer
was
yes. It is a possibility and, in fact, it is much easier to implement a party
list system on a national or at large level than at the district level.
That is the first reason why I am proposing such. The major reason why I am
proposing that we should encourage a party list system for the 24 Senators
is
to eliminate the possibility that the Senate will be dominated by one, or at
the most, two large political parties; and to encourage small political
parties to compete for senatorial seats even though they will be elected at
large. By my computation, if we elect 12 Senators every election, a party
would
only need eight percent of the votes to have one Senator. Of course, larger
parties should get more than eight percent, let us say, 40 percent, to entitle
them to five seats of the 12 while other smaller parties can only muster eight
percent and they would be entitled to one seat. But, in effect, the direct
result of such system is that in every election we would encourage more
than one party to be elected. In the process, we are democratizing and
encouraging
a system of election based not only on the personalities of the candidates
but also on the issues and ideology of the parties that are presenting their
programs. That is the basis for my proposal.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to comment on that proposal, Madam President.
Under the party list system, when the parties register, they put down the
names of
their candidates in the order in which they would sit. If the party list system
in the Senate is applied, each party will have 12 candidates but the bottom
ones are sure not to win unless that party gets 93 percent of the votes. In the
case of the House of Representatives, we are putting a ceiling of 10 or 15
seats that a party may earn under the party list system. There is a difference
there, Madam President. When they list down 15 names, those 15 have a
chance
of winning if they get something like 20 percent of the votes. So, there is a
difference when we are voting on a House that has only 24 Members and
only 12
seats are being voted on in an election, unlike in the case of the House
where you have 50 seats and there is a cap on how many you can seat. In
this case
we will find anybody who will run for the lower numbers because they are
sure not to sit.
MR. GASCON: I recognize that problem but I feel that if we encourage other
parties to, let us say, compete on an even level to some degree through the
party list system, we may be able to come out with results during our
elections. But the cream of the crop of each party would be elected and we
would have
a very dynamic and progressive Senate which would be very healthful for a
growing democracy. That is the first point.
Second, I am not sure whether each party is bound to field all 12 seats. But it
is possible that if they feel they will not be able to get the last four
seats because of the party list system, maybe they will field only eight and
concentrate on the eight and encourage other parties as well, to compete for
the other four. My only point is, through this party list system, we may break
the two-party system in the Senate.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, it is true that during the suspension of
session, this representation answered Commissioner Gascon that the party
list system
for the Senate is a possibility; however, this representation did not say that it
is probable. The Committee would only state for the record that the party
list system in the Senate will not accomplish what Commissioner Gascon had
in mind allowing other smaller parties to get a voice in the Senate
because
whether it would be through the party list system or through a regular
political party, the same opportunity will be accorded.
Secondly, we will be restoring block voting for a party. In other words, we will
deprive the people of the greater opportunity to know the merits of each
individual candidate since what will be submitted by a party will only be a list
of people, a list to be submitted to the COMELEC. It is very likely that
the people who will be voting all over the country will never have a chance of
knowing exactly the capabilities of the particular candidates listed in the
party list.
Thirdly, I do not think that it will actually be a vote for a particular party
which would, therefore, amount to block voting. I understand that the
Article on the Constitutional Commissions, more particularly on the
COMELEC, except for the party list system, really would not allow such. So,
we would
rather leave it to the Commission to vote on the issue, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Before we vote, I would like to make a clarification.
The Committee said that they were agreeable to my position in as far as the
word probable is concerned; what I meant to say is that the party system is
a
possibility for the Senate. That is all.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, we are ready to vote.
VOTING
Commissioner Gascon on Section 2, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their
hand.)
their hand.)
is lost.
MR. ROMULO: If the Committee has no further matter to take up, I ask that
Commissioner Bengzon be recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, that wraps up our discussion on the
Committee Report on the Legislative and as per clearance of the Chairman of
the
Committee, I move that the body vote on Second Reading on the Article on
the Legislative. But before we vote, may I withdraw my motion because the
Chairman
requests that clean copies of the Article on the Executive be distributed first.
Since clean copies have already been distributed, I would like to move that
the Article on the Executive be voted upon on Second Reading.
MR. REGALADO: On a point of information, while we already have the clean
copies of the Article on the Executive, by tomorrow as we have made
reservations
for that purpose, we will circulate the same copies for Second Reading, but
this time with the numbers realigned, meaning just a transposition of
sections
but containing exactly the same as is now being distributed among the
Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is the Gentlemans proposal that we postpone
the voting until tomorrow?
MR. REGALADO: No, we can proceed, Madam President. I just wanted to point
out that tomorrow we will distribute copies of the Article with realigned or
renumbered sections.
MR. DE CASTRO: I move for a suspension of the session for five minutes so
we will have an opportunity to read this. I have not had an opportunity to
read
this because I have been very busy the whole afternoon.
It was 6:57 p.m.
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, having listened to the reaction of the
Commissioners and considering that everyone is tired, I withdraw my motion.
Therefore,
we will vote on Second Reading on the Articles on the Legislative and on the
Executive tomorrow morning at nine oclock.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I move for the adjournment of the session
until nine oclock tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until nine oclock tomorrow
morning.
It was 6:59 p.m.
Footnotes:
** Amended title.
* See Appendix.
R.C.C. NO. 46
Saturday, August 2, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:35 a.m., the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Cirilo A. Rigos.
PRAYER
REV. RIGOS: Most gracious and loving God, let Thy Spirit guide us in our work
today. Help us to realize our inadequacy that we may look up to Thee for
guidance and wisdom.
Grant us the strength equal to our task, and the faith that will enable us to
overcome all difficulties.
In Jesus name we pray. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.

Abubakar
Present*
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present
Natividad
Present*
Aquino
Present*
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present*
Ople
Present
Bengzon
Present
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present
Bernas
Absent
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present*
Reyes de los
Present
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Absent
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present*
Tadeo
Present*
Guingona
Present
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present

Treas.
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of
yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
of Business.
motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from former Senator Magnolia W. Antonino, 15th Floor, G.E. Antonino
Building, T.M. Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila, submitting some proposals for
inclusion in the Constitution, to wit: (1) There shall be a Commission on
Appointments composed of members of the legislature; (2) The only elective
provincial officials shall be the Governor and the Vice-Governor. The
Governor and the Vice-Governor shall be the chairman and vice-chairman,
respectively,
of a provincial assembly composed of all the municipal mayors in the
province; (3) The only elective municipal officials shall be the Mayor and
Vice-Mayor
who shall be chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the municipal
assembly composed of all barrio captains; and (4) The right of every citizen
to
possess firearms in his residence subject to reasonable restrictions and
qualifications.

Letter from Mr. Ramon R. Batino, Jr. of P.O. Box 627, Bacolod City, expressing
apprehension over the possible effects of the dismantling of the U.S. bases
in the Philippines in the areas of national security, economic stability and
religious freedom.
Letter from Mr. Alexander de Jesus of the Miners Association of the
Philippines, Inc., submitted thru the honorable Commissioner Ambrosio
Padilla,
suggesting a provision in the Constitution that a petition for review of a final
decision of the Supreme Court during martial law which is manifestly
against the evidence and is contrary to law may be filed within one year from
the ratification of this Constitution and given due course.
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Jose R. Reyes of 2278 Pasong Tamo Extension, Makati, Metro
Manila, and 28 others, urging the Constitutional Commission to adopt a
provision
in the Constitution for the renewal of the U.S. Military Bases Agreement upon
its expiry in 1991, and to take a firm stand with the forces of freedom,
instead of taking a stance of neutrality and nonalignment.
Letter from Ms. Dolores A. Endriga, OIC, School of Urban and Regional
Planning, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, submitting a
resolution adopted by the U.P. School of Urban and Regional Planning Faculty,
suggesting incorporation in the Constitution of a provision on housing.
Letter from Mr. Ricardo Amador of 32 Badminton Street, New Saint Francis
Village, Cainta, Rizal, suggesting among others, the adoption of the electoral
college type of voting for national elections.

Communication signed by 1,254 people with their corresponding addresses,
seeking to include in the 1986 Constitution a provision obliging the State to
protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
Letter from the Honorable Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr., Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, expressing doubts whether the adoption of important provisions by
mere
majority vote is a sufficient indication of the real will of the people,
suggesting therefor that when voting at the referendum/plebiscite, the
electorate
can then indicate a vote for the Constitution as a whole document and the
disputed provisions thereof and the resulting vote will decide what the final
document will be.
Letter from Ms. Rosa Maria Juan Bautista of the Division of Research and Law
Reform, U.P. Law Center, proposing provisions renouncing child labor,
protecting working children, and giving aid and support to the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court, and enclosing copies of lectures delivered at the
U.P. Institute of Industrial Relations.
Principles.
Communication from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, entitled:
Explanatory Note of the Proposed Commission on Justice.
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Letter from Ms. Antonnette Queri, Campus Ministry Team, requesting a

provision protecting the unborn.
Communication from the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines,
Sorsogon Provincial Chapter, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, signed by its President,
Cecilia
A. Ortiz and other officers, petitioning the Constitutional Commission to
incorporate in the Constitution a clear-cut statement of national policy on
family planning.
Communication from the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines,
Davao Provincial Chapter, 33-F J.P. Laurel Avenue, Davao City, signed by its
Chapter President, Roberto V. Alcantara and other officers and members,
expressing among others the desire to have a Commission on Population
whose
activities are independent of any social or health agency.
Letter from Ms. Rosalita Bengzon Moran of 686 Aurora Blvd., Quezon City,
voicing the plight of small land-owners whose landholdings were covered by
land
reform, saying that small landowners were made the sacrificial lambs to
quiet rural restiveness, and that she has not been paid her lawful share for
some
years now, among others.
Letter from Mr. Ben Divina, c/o United Nationalist Democratic Organization,
Old Congress Bldg., Manila, submitting a newspaper clipping captioned
Overseas
Workers as Capitalists.

CONSIDERATION OF
(Article on Social Justice)
MR. RAMA: The scheduled voting on the Article on the Legislative, as
amended, has to be postponed because the clean copies have not yet been
distributed.
Also, we have to postpone the voting on Second Reading on the Article on
the Executive because there is still an amendment that has to be taken up
according to the Vice-Chairman of said Committee.
Therefore, Madam President, I move that we consider Committee Report No.
34 on Proposed Resolution No. 534 as reported out by the Committee on
Social
Justice.
motion is approved.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we proceed further, the session is suspended for a
few minutes.
It was 9:47 a.m.

text thereof.
ARTICLE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE.
(The following is the whole text of the proposed resolution per C.R. No. 34.)
The Committee on Social Justice to which were referred the following:
Proposed Resolution No. 19, introduced by Hon. Azcuna, entitled:
RESOLUTION ON THE ROLE OF FARMERS AND WORKERS,
Proposed Resolution No. 20, introduced by Hon. Azcuna, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR AUTHENTIC LAND REFORM,
Proposed Resolution No. 25, introduced by Hon Nolledo, entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE LANDHOLDINGS,
Proposed Resolution No. 37, introduced by Hon. Davide, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING GENUINE AND BROADER LAND REFORM POLICIES
AND FOR THE INCORPORATION IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF A SEPARATE
ARTICLE ON LAND REFORM,
Proposed Resolution No 82 introduced by Hon. Bennagen, entitled:
SOCIAL JUSTICE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE DECLARATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES,
Proposed Resolution No. 91, introduced by Hon. Gascon and Garcia, entitled:
RESOLUTION URGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE
PEOPLES PROPOSAL FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES,
Proposed Resolution No. 93, introduced by Hon. Davide, entitled:
A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO LIMIT THE AREA OF PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL

LAND THAT MAY BE ACQUIRED BY NATURALIZED FILIPINO CITIZENS AND
PROVIDING FOR THE ESCHEAT
OF ANY HELD IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION,
Proposed Resolution No. 100, introduced by Hon. Gascon and Garcia,
entitled:
RESOLUTION URGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO LOOK INTO THE
ISSUES AFFECTING THE URBAN POOR,
Proposed Resolution No. 113, introduced by Hon. Quesada, Tan, Bennagen
and Sarmiento, entitled:
ACCORDING FILIPINO CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO STANDARDS OF LIVING
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THEIR
WELL-BEING; AND THE PROVISION BY THE STATE OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES
PERTINENT THERETO,
Proposed Resolution No. 126, introduced by Hon. de los Reyes, Jr., Maambong
and Natividad, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE GENERAL PROVISION OR DECLARATION OF
PRINCIPLES A PROVISION TO AID AND ASSIST THE DISABLED, HANDICAPPED,
ORPHANS, AGED AND
OTHER DISADVANTAGED CITIZENS,
Proposed Resolution No. 167, introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO DECLARE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AS A PRIMARY OBLIGATION
OF THE STATE,
Proposed Resolution No. 171, introduced by Hon. Villegas, Sarmiento and
Rosario Braid, entitled:
RESOLUTION THAT A BROAD WORKING DEFINITION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE BE
ADOPTED,
RESOLUTION MANDATING COOPERATIVISM AS A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, COOPERATIVES AS ITS VEHICLE, THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS
THEREFOR, AND CREATION OF A NATIONAL COOPERATIVE AND LAND
REFORM AUTHORITY,

RESOLUTION TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION AS A BARRIER TO WORK
OPPORTUNITIES,
Proposed Resolution No. 227, introduced by Hon. Villegas, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INTRODUCE A SEPARATE ARTICLE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
TO SET CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING ITS PROVISIONS FROM THOSE
PROPER TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS
AND OTHER ARTICLES,
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE TO
IMPLEMENT THE STATES POLICY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE,
Proposed Resolution No. 277, introduced by Hon. Quesada, Suarez and
Sarmiento, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON
A NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY FOR A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY
SYSTEM FOR THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY,
Proposed Resolution No. 279, introduced by Hon. Nolledo, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT THE STATE
SHALL FOSTER AND PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COOPERATIVES AND
SUPPORTING SERVICES ALL OVER
THE COUNTRY ESPECIALLY IN THE RURAL AREAS,
Proposed Resolution No. 316, introduced by Hon. Tingson, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ADOPT IN THE CONSTITUTION A PROVISION
DECLARING LAND REFORM A CORNERSTONE IN THE ECONOMIC REFORM OF
THE COUNTRY,
Proposed Resolution No. 320, introduced by Hon. Tingson entitled:
A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A
PROVISION ON THE PROTECTION AND WELFARE OF WORKERS,
Proposed Resolution No. 340, introduced by Hon. Tadeo and Suarez, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE A SEPARATE SECTION ON

AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS,
Proposed Resolution No. 342, introduced by Hon. Tadeo and Quesada,
entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE AFFIRMATION OF AGRARIAN REFORM AS A
FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT IN ACHIEVING SOCIAL EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND
THEREFORE MUST BE ENSHRINED IN
THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION,
Proposed Resolution No. 343, introduced by Hon. Tadeo, Aquino, Brocka,
Villacorta, Ople, de los Reyes, Jr., Quesada, Maambong, Bennagen,
Sarmiento, Garcia,
Suarez and Gascon, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR A SEPARATE ARTICLE ON AGRARIAN REFORM
AS A FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JUST, HUMANE
AND PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY,
Proposed Resolution No. 366, introduced by Hon. Nolledo, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT ALL KINDS OF
IDLE OR ABANDONED LANDS NOT PUT TO APPROPRIATE USE AS DEFINED BY
LAW WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM
RATIFICATION OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION SHALL BE FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF
THE STATE TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO BENEFICIARIES OF LAND REFORM,
Proposed Resolution No. 376, introduced by Hon. Gascon and Garcia,
entitled:
AFFORDING MORE PROTECTION TO LABOR AND GUARANTEEING BASIC
HUMAN AND TRADE UNION RIGHTS,
Proposed Resolution No. 379, introduced by Hon. Treas, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO
EMPHASIZE AND STRENGTHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASE FOR A SOCIAL
HOUSING PROGRAM,
Proposed Resolution No. 397, introduced by Hon. Sarmiento and Tan,
entitled:

CREATING AN AGENCY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES UNIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS,
Proposed Resolution No. 398, introduced by Hon. Sarmiento and Tan,
entitled:
GRANTING THE RIGHT TO FORM UNION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
Proposed Resolution No. 413, introduced by Hon. de los Reyes, Jr. entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT OF THE STATE TO
ASSIST THE DISABLED INTO BECOMING PRODUCTIVE AND USEFUL MEMBERS
OF SOCIETY,
Proposed Resolution No. 419, introduced by Hon. Tan, Villacorta and Rigos,
entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A
PROVISION GUARANTEEING A DECENT SHELTER FOR EVERY FILIPINO,
PROTECTION AGAINST ARBITRARY AND
INHUMAN DEMOLITION OF DWELLINGS AND AN ASSURANCE FOR PROPER
RESETTLEMENT UNDER A COMPREHENSIVE SHELTER PROGRAM,
Proposed Resolution No. 421, introduced by Hon. Nieva, Monsod, Tan and
Bacani, entitled:
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO
INSURE THAT THE STATE SHALL UNDERTAKE AND IMPLEMENT AN URBAN
LAND REFORM AND SOCIAL HOUSING
PROGRAM,
Proposed Resolution No. 425, introduced by Hon. Sarmiento, Quesada and
Tadeo, entitled:
PROVISION GUARANTEEING INALIENABILITY AND INSURANCE OF A MINIMUM
PATRIMONY OF EACH FAMILY
THAT ENSURE DECENT FAMILY LIFE,
Proposed Resolution No. 426, introduced by Hon. Sarmiento, Quesada, Tadeo
and Bennagen, entitled:

PROVISION ESTABLISHING WORK AS A RIGHT AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY,
STATE ENDEAVOR TO ACHIEVE
FULL PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND CREATION OF A CENTRALIZED
MONITORING SYSTEM AND UNEMPLOYMENT WELFARE PROGRAM,
Proposed Resolution No. 429, introduced by Hon. Suarez, Tadeo and
Sarmiento, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
A PROVISION FOR THE EXPROPRIATION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL AND NONAGRICULTURAL LANDS
FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THEIR CRONIES
AND IMMEDIATE SUBJECTION OF THE SAME TO URBAN AND RURAL LAND
REFORM,
Proposed Resolution No. 431, introduced by Hon. Natividad, Ople, Maambong
and de los Reyes, Jr., entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION IN THE NEW ARTICLE
ON SOCIAL JUSTICE THAT AS A RESTITUTION, THE VICTIMS OF CRIME BE
GIVEN A SHARE OF FINES
PAID IN COURT BY CONVICTED CRIMINALS,
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES THE
RECOGNITION OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM AS
PRIORITIES OF THE STATE,
Proposed Resolution No. 491, introduced by Hon. Quesada, Tadeo and
Aquino, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND WELFARE OF FILIPINO OVERSEAS
WORKERS (FOWs ),
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AS AMENDED ARTICLE 2, SECTION 6 OF THE 1973
CONSTITUTION FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
AND STATE POLICIES OF THE
NEW CONSTITUTION,
Proposed Resolution No. 509, introduced by Hon. Sarmiento and Quesada,
entitled:

REQUIRING THE SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY TO PROVIDE COVERAGE TO ALL
WORKERS WHO WORK FOR PRIVATE
EMPLOYERS INCLUDING DOMESTIC HELPERS AND SELF-EMPLOYED
INDIVIDUALS WHO VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT THEMSELVES FOR COVERAGE,
Proposed Resolution No. 513, introduced by Hon. Garcia and Gascon,
entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION MORE SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS FOR PROMOTING AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF LABOR,
Proposed Resolution No. 515, introduced by Hon. Garcia and Gascon,
entitled:
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS TO
REGULATE THE OWNERSHIP, USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF LAND,
Proposed Resolution No. 520, introduced by Hon. Quesada, Bennagen,
Brocka, Sarmiento and Suarez, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON
AN EFFECTIVE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM, MAINTENANCE OF AN
EFFECTIVE FOOD AND DRUG
MONITORING BODY AND HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT,
has considered the same and has the honor to report them back to the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommendation that attached
Proposed
Resolution No. 534, prepared by the Committee, entitled:
ARTICLE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE,
91, 93, 100, 113, 126, 167, 171, 180, 181, 227, 253, 277, 279, 316, 320,
340,
342, 343, 366, 376, 379, 397, 398, 413, 419, 421, 425, 426, 429, 431, 479,
491, 504, 509, 513, 515 and 520 with Honorable Nieva, Gascon, Tadeo,
Monsod,
Aquino, Brocka, Suarez, Ople, Quesada, Bacani, Garcia, Lerum, Tan,
Villacorta, Bennagen, Bengzon, Jr., Rodrigo, Azcuna, Nolledo, Davide, Jr.,
Sarmiento, de
los Reyes, Rosario Braid, Villegas, Guingona, Tingson, Treas and Natividad
as authors.
(Sgd.) Ma. Teresa F. Nieva

Chairperson
Committee on Social Justice
(Sgd.) Jose Luis Martin C.
Gascon
(Sgd.) Jaime S. L. Tadeo
Vice Chairman
(Sgd.) Christian S. Monsod
(Sgd.) Lino O. Brocka

Member
(Sgd.) Felicitas S. Aquino
Member
Member
(Sgd.) Jose E. Suarez

Member
Member
(Sgd.) Minda Luz M. Quesada (Sgd.) Blas F. Ople**

Member
(Sgd.) Teodoro C. Bacani
(Sgd.) Edmundo G. Garcia

Member
(Sgd.) Eulogio R. Lerum
Member
Member
(Sgd.) Christine Tan

Member
Member
(Sgd.) Wilfrido V. Villacorta
(Sgd.) Ponciano L. Bennagen

Member
(Sgd.) Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr.
Member
(Sgd.) Francisco A. Rodrigo

Member
Member

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled, to incorporate in the New Constitution a separate Article
on
Social Justice, with the following provisions:
ARTICLE _
SOCIAL JUSTICE
SECTION 1. Social Justice, as a social, economic, political, moral imperative,
shall be the primary consideration of the State in the pursuit of national
development. To this end, Congress shall give the highest priority to the
formulation and implementation of measures designed to reduce economic
and
political inequalities found among citizens, and to promote the material
structural conditions which promote and enhance human dignity, protect the
inalienable rights of persons and sectors to health, welfare and security, and
put the material wealth and power of the community at the disposal of the
common good.
SECTION 2. Towards these ends, the State shall regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use and disposition of property and its fruits, promote the
establishment of self-reliant, socio-political and economic structures
determined by the people themselves, protect labor, rationalize the use and
disposition of land, and ensure the satisfaction of the basic material needs of
all.
LABOR
SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor both domestic and
overseas, organized or unorganized, and shall promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities regardless of sex, age, culture or
creed.
SECTION 4. The State shall guarantee the rights of workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted
activities
for their own protection, welfare and mutual aid, including the right to strike.
It shall also guarantee job security, just and humane conditions of work
and participation in policy and decision-making affecting their rights and
benefits. The State shall promote voluntary modes of settling disputes
between
workers and employers and shall regulate their relations in a manner that
recognize the primacy of the right of labor to its just share and at the same
time protecting the right of capital to realize its growth potential and
reasonable returns on investments.
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCE REFORM
SECTION 5. The State shall undertake a genuine agrarian reform program
founded on the primacy of the rights of farmers and farmworkers to own
directly or
collectively the lands they till. To this end, the State shall encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such
retention limits as the National Assembly may prescribe and subject to a fair
and progressive system of compensation.
SECTION 6. The State shall recognize the right of farmers and farmworkers,
and of cooperatives to participate in the planning, organizing, and
management
of the program and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate
technology, and adequate financial, production and marketing assistance.
SECTION 7. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform in the
disposition of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain
under lease or concession, subject to prior rights of original inhabitants and
without violating the homestead rights of small settlers and the rights of
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
AQUATIC RESOURCES REFORM
SECTION 8. The State shall protect the rights of fishermen and local
communities to the beneficial or communal use of marine and fishing
resources, both
inland and offshore, and shall provide appropriate financial, technical and
research assistance for the development and conservation of such resources.
SECTION 9. The State shall promote the integrated development of
agricultural, fishing and marine resources to meet the basic needs of the
people and the
industrialization objective of the country.
URBAN LAND REFORM AND HOUSING
SECTION 10. The State shall regulate the ownership and use of urban land
for the common good and undertake a continuing Urban Land Reform and
Housing
program that will ensure decent housing at affordable cost to deserving lowincome citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas, together with
complementary infrastructure, neighborhood services and employmentgenerating economic activities.
SECTION 11. Urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings
demolished without due process of law. No resettlement shall take place
without
consultation with the communities to be relocated and their involvement in
its planning and implementation.
SECTION 12. The housing program shall extend to low-income rural dwellers
in the context of a comprehensive agrarian reform and development
program.
HEALTH
SECTION 13. The State shall protect and promote the peoples right to health
and to this end, establish and maintain an integrated and comprehensive
health
care program that shall make essential goods and social services available to
all citizens at affordable cost, with priority for the needs of the
disadvantaged, the sick, women and children, aged and disabled.
SECTION 14. The State shall maintain an effective food and drug monitoring
system and promote appropriate health manpower development and
research on
health care problems.
SECTION 15. The State shall establish a special body for disabled persons
which shall consolidate the functions of existing government agencies and
provide
for the rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance of the disabled

towards their total integration to the mainstream of society.
WOMEN
SECTION 16. The State shall afford protection to working women by providing
for optimum working conditions especially in relation to their maternal
functions. It shall ensure equal work opportunities and equality in
employment and compensation.
SECTION 17. The State shall develop facilities and services that will promote
the welfare and well-being of women to realize their capabilities for
maximum
participation in the service of the country.
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
SECTION 18. The State shall undertake, foster and protect the development
of the education, culture, communications, health and the economy of
indigenous
communities, in consideration of their cherished traditions, values, beliefs
and practices.
ROLE AND RIGHTS OF PEOPLES ORGANIZATION
SECTION 19. In the pursuit of the ends of Social Justice, the State shall
respect the independence and the role of peoples organizations as a
principal
means of empowering the people to pursue and protect their legitimate and
collective interests and aspirations.
SECTION 20. The State shall respect the basic right of people and their
organizations to free, direct and responsible participation at all levels of
social, political and economic decision-making, ensuring that proper and
adequate consultation mechanisms shall be instituted in the formulation and
implementation of local, regional and national priorities, plans, programs and
projects that affect the peoples lives.
MR. RAMA: I ask, Madam President, that the Chairman of the Committee on
Social Justice be recognized to make her sponsorship speech.
THE PRESIDENT: The honorable Chairman of the Committee on Social Justice,
Commissioner Nieva, is recognized.
We request the members of the Committee to please occupy the front table.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER NIEVA

MS. NIEVA: Madam President, our Committee on Social Justice is now
presenting Committee Report No. 34 which is contained in Proposed
Resolution No. 534, to
wit: RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A SEPARATE
Our Committee hopes that social justice will be the centerpiece of the 1986
Constitution. The rationale for this is that social justice provides the
material and social infrastructure for the realization of basic human rights
the enhancement of human dignity and effective participation in democratic
processes. Rights, dignity and participation remain illusory without social
justice.
Our February 1986 Revolution was not merely against the dictatorship nor
was it merely a fight for the restoration of human rights; rather, this popular
revolution was also a clamor for a more equitable share of the nations
resources and power, a clamor which reverberated in the many public
hearings which
the Constitutional Commission conducted throughout the country.
If our 1986 Constitution would enshrine the peoples aspirations as
dramatically expressed in the revolution and ensure the stability, peace and
progress
of our nation, it must provide for social justice in a stronger and more
comprehensive manner than did the previous Constitutions.
Social justice, in its substance and as a reflection o the needs of Philippine
society, must include the following: provision for basic needs, equalization
of access to productive resources and promotion of peoples organizations. In
a nation where more than half of the people are below the poverty line. the
first target of a social justice measure should, therefore, be provisions, direct
and indirect, for adequate responses to these basic needs such as health,
shelter and education. It is not the intent, however, that the State will take
away the initiative from the people and will do everything. This is against
the principle of enhancing human dignity. The State should only provide, in
most cases, the necessary and sufficient condition for the people to take the
active role. And one such important condition is the democratization of
productive resources. In a very real way, inequality in the sharing of the
fruits
of development can be traced to the concentration of productive resources in
the hands of a very small minority, and this is especially true of land and
capital resources. There- fore, access to these resources must be
democratized if the nation is to permanently achieve social justice. Here, the
State must
go beyond merely affirming the social character of property or the concept of

stewardship fox the common good. It must also promote measures to realize
this democratization; and models and experiences also of other countries
abroad in land reform, cooperatives, profit sharing and workers participation
in
industry are not lacking.
The successful implementation of all these programs would, however, require
the active participation of peoples organizations in all levels and it is
through these peoples organizations that the creativity and initiative of the
people are harnessed and which embody and activate grassroots democracy.
It
is, therefore, proposed that the State promote the formation of various forms
of peoples organizations as effective vehicles for grassroots democracy and
the promotion of social justice.
Our Article consists of the following major areas of concern: the social justice
concept, labor, agrarian and natural resources reform, urban land reform,
housing, health, indigenous communities and the role and rights of peoples
organizations.
In Sections 1 and 2, the provisions mandate the State to give social justice
the highest priority to promote equality in the social, economic and political
life of the nation through the redistribution of our resources, wealth and
power for the greater good.
Sections 3 and 4 deal with labor. Here, it expands the scope of State
protection for the close to 21 million labor force in the country by including
not
only domestic but also overseas workers estimated at no less than half-amillion and it also takes cognizance of the vast majority of workers who are
not
organized. The percentage of unionized workers is estimated at about 5.1
percent only of the total labor force, while the vast majority in the public
sector, in small businesses, agriculture and self-employed workers do not
enjoy the rights of organized labor.
We have also added a new concept in Section 4, not only of collective
bargaining but also collective negotiations which would extend the right to
bargain
for the protection of the rights of the unorganized sector and the rights to
strike and the promotion of voluntary modes of settling disputes between the
workers and employers. This addition was made in view of the
manifestations of both labor and management that they would not want
compulsory arbitration as
provided for in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
Another important aspect here is the statement that recognizes the primacy
of the right of labor to its just share and at the same time in protecting the
right of business enterprises to realize reasonable returns on investments.
On the area of agrarian and natural resources reform, Section 5 stresses the
social justice principle that to him who tills the soil principally belongs
the fruits of his labor. Therefore, Section 5 mandates that farmers and farm
workers have the right to own the lands they till, individually or
collectively, through cooperatives and similar organizations.
The scope of land reform is also extended to all agricultural lands, subject to
maximum retention limits to be provided by Congress and a fair and
progressive system of compensation.
Section 7 underscores the importance of cooperatives and similar farmers
organizations, as well as adequate support systems in technology, financing
and
marketing as imperative requirements for a successful land reform program.
In Section 7, we specify that agrarian reform should apply also to other
natural
resources; for example, lands of public domain under lease or concession.
However, the prior rights of the original inhabitants, small settlers and
cultural communities should be respected.
Section 8 provides for the very first time a specific reference to the rights of
small fishermen who number about 700,000 so that they may be given the
beneficial use, direct or communal, of marine and fishing resources, as well
as assistance financial, technical and research for the development and
conservation of these resources. We feel that this is a very important
provision in view of the fact that the sea area is six times bigger than the
land
area in our country.
On urban land reform and housing, which is contained in Sections 10 and 11,
we feel that the Committee addresses the urgency for an effective and
continuing urban land reform and housing program for the more than 25
million Filipinos who do not enjoy the advantages of home and
landownership. We are
an ill-housed nation with a high percentage of our urban population
estimated at five million squatters living in subhuman conditions. This
concern was the
target of the 1984 plebiscite and is now provided for in Article XIV, Section
12 of the 1973 Constitution. However, efforts in implementing this program
have been far from satisfactory. An example of this are the BLISS programs
which are certainly not within the reach of the poor majority.
This section also provides that the housing program should necessarily
provide for complementary infrastructure, neighborhood services and
opportunities
for employment, because the Philippine experience in the resettlement areas
for squatter families has shown that unless the abovementioned conditions
are
present, the relocatees are forced to leave these areas and come back to
the cities where at least they have some livelihood opportunities.
Then, Section 11 would place in the Constitution protection for the thousands
of homeless urban poor who have to be evicted or resettled. And we provide
here that this cannot be done unless the targets or the beneficiaries should
be consulted and given a share in the decision-making as regards the
protests
against relocation and the implementation of this.
In Section 12, we would also extend the housing program to low-income rural
dwellers within the context of the comprehensive agrarian reform program.
Sections 13, 14 and 15 are based on what we all realize is the principle that a
healthy nation is a strong nation. In previous Constitutions, there had
only been a passing mention of the important sector of health. And here we
hope to provide for an integrated and comprehensive health care program at
an
affordable cost to the average citizen, especially to the majority of the
disadvantaged. As we know, many here in the Philippines would say that it is
cheaper to die than to go for medication.
Also, in Section 14, the State shall maintain an effective food and drug
monitoring system. The problem of the dumping of harmful and adulterated
food and
drugs in the country from foreign countries has been a very significant
problem that has to be addressed through this provision.
In Section 15, we take cognizance of the need of the millions of disabled
persons so that they may be integrated into the mainstream of society.
Sections 16 and 17 are the sections for women, and here, we especially
recognized the need for protection for the working women vis-a-vis their
maternal
function for optimum working conditions, and also a provision that would
provide for women to fully realize their capabilities in the service of the
country.
Section 18 deals with the indigenous communities. We say that the State
should take into serious consideration the needs of the indigenous
communities
consistent with their cherished traditions, values, beliefs and practices.
And, finally, in the last Sections 19 and 20, we highlight the importance of
peoples organizations in order to realize the above objectives of social
justice. All throughout the Constitution we have stressed the importance of
peoples participation. Here we highlight this and say that we hope that the
State should not only respect the rights of the people and their organizations
but that it should institutionalize this participation and consultation
mechanisms at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making.
By peoples organizations, of course, we are referring to all sectoral
organizations: trade unions, peasant organizations, urban poor, cooperatives
and consumer organizations, human rights groups, basic Christian
communities
and the like.
May we suggest, Madam President, that in the period of amendments. we
should take the different sections one by one so that we need not tackle the
different areas simultaneously. Perhaps, this will expedite the discussions and
the amendments thereto.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I already told the interpellators about the
desire of the Committee to take the provisions one by one in chronological
order.
THE PRESIDENT: And the interpellators will please register with the Floor
Leader.
MR. RAMA: Yes. But some of them have replied that the provisions are very
important; some of them very novel. They would be allowed to ask questions
on one
provision to another for purposes only of the interpellations. But during the
period of amendments, we will follow the strict rule of introducing
amendments section by section in chronological order.
So, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized, please?
I would like to pose some questions to the honorable Chairman and the
members of the Committee on Social Justice. With respect to Section 9, page
1, after
providing for the concept of social justice, it is provided that:
Towards these ends, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use
and disposition of property and its fruits, promote the establishment of
independent and self-reliant, socio-political and economic structures
determined by the people themselves.
I notice that if we analyze this provision, there are two parts involved. The
first part is about diffusion of property; and the second part refers to
supporting structures. I also notice that, as I heard the honorable Chairman
explain the provisions, the report does not cover only the concept of property
and its supporting structures. But the report touches upon the rights of
women and the disabled, including the rights of the people to organize.
So, if the Committee will agree, I recommend that Section 2 should reflect
not only property and supporting structures but provisions pertinent to
womens
rights, the disabled, etc., for purposes of symmetry. What does the
Committee say about this?
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the response from any member of the
Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, because after giving the general concept of social justice,
the report says: Towards these ends. It seems that the words following the
phrase Towards these ends- do not reflect the entire report. It speaks of
property and supporting services only. So, if the Committee is amenable, I
recommend that there should be some wordings indicative of the recognition
of womens rights, rights of the disabled designed to give importance to
human
dignity. We will present the amendment later on.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think that is implied also on lines 9, 10 and 11 on the
reduction of social, economic and political inequities. More or less, the
womens
rights would be covered in the economic and social inequities. That is a very
good observation and I think we can tackle that suggestion in the period of
amendments.
On page 2, Section 4, with respect to the words participation in policy and
decision-making on line 15 and the words just share on the part of labor
and ending on investments on line 22, am I correct in including, taking all
these words together, that the Committee is recommending profit sharing
and
that the workers be represented in management?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.

MR. NOLLEDO: So, there are two aspects that are involved. The workers
should also participate in management.
MS. NIEVA: That is right.
MR. NOLLEDO: Perhaps, they should have representation in the board of
directors of a corporation. And profit-sharing is also recommended.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, but we are not mandating profit-sharing as such. We are
recognizing the importance of profit-sharing.
MR. NOLLEDO: What does the sponsor mean by not mandating because on
line 12, it says: shall regulate.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, but profit-sharing can be encouraged in various ways. There
have been contradictory reviews in this regard and even the Ministry of
Labor
did not recommend a mandatory profit-sharing scheme, but various schemes
that would result in the same benefits for labor.
MR. NOLLEDO: And, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the provision
on profit-sharing is not self-executory.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: There must be an implementing statute should Congress
decide to adopt profit-sharing, am I right?
MS. NIEVA: That is the way I see it. Maybe Commissioner Aquino, who is the
Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Labor, might want to add something to
that.
MS. AQUINO: The committee report does not provide for mandatory profitsharing. It is very clear from the tenor of the presentation that at best we are
providing for a mandate on equitable sharing of fruits, without specifically
saying that the scheme of profit-sharing is self-implementing. We considered
here the position of the Ministry of Labor when they did not specifically
advocate for a specific mandate on profit-sharing. But Section 4 is best
understood as the major centerpiece of social justice while Section 2
essentially recognizes the social function of the means of production, and
that would
include labor and capital.
MS. AQUINO: Commissioner Nolledo is correct, it is not self-executory as it is

formulated here.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just suggest that when we read the
entire section, we should high light the fact that when we talk of the phrase
participation in policy and decision-making on lines 8 and 9 on page 2, it is
qualified by the phrase affecting their rights and benefits. Secondly, on
line 17, the whole idea is the promotion of voluntary modes of settling.
disputes and at the same time the role of the State in enforcing mutual
compliance
thereto. With respect to profit-sharing, I think the operative words are to its
just share and we read that in connection with the voluntary modes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Monsod for his answer. I notice that the
report dispensed with compulsory arbitration. May we know from the
Committee
the reason for dispensing with the provision found in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions which runs like this: That the State may provide for
compulsory
arbitration. There is no provision on compulsory arbitration in the report.
MS. NIEVA: One thing that was very clear in all the public hearings that we
held with the different labor groups, as well as the management group, is
that
both partners were very firm in ruling out compulsory arbitration. They felt
that the two partners should be left free without government interference in
deciding their labor disputes.
MR. MONSOD: Perhaps the intent of the Committee is to emphasize the
primacy of voluntary modes. That is the reason for that. but nothing in this
Article
precludes it because there may be sections in various laws where that is
provided for. We just do not want to show in this section that that is the way
it
should be settled as a primary way of settling disputes because that was the
wish of both management and labor.
MR. NOLLEDO: In the event that the methods of voluntary arbitrations prove
ineffective and neither party wants to give way, thus resulting in a
stalemate,
what is then the consensus of the Committee on what will be the procedure if
there is no compulsory arbitration and the parties could not agree? Will the
strike continue? Suppose there are many strikes in different parts of the
country, may not national chaos or confusion exist should the methods of
voluntary arbitration do not prove successful?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, there are certain steps there and, of course,
it ends with the right to strike by the labor group. We are saying here that
this function of the State in regulating the relations between labor and
management is not absent. The State is always there. But we are saying that
settlement of disputes should be made to the extent possible and to all the
rights available to labor and management, therefore, it should be through
voluntary means and the rights available to labor should be given, such as
the right to strike.
MR. NOLLEDO: And do I understand it correctly that the provision does not
prevent the legislature from providing for a process known as compulsory
arbitration? Am I correct?
MS. AQUINO: Yes. May I specify the procedures in labor and management
negotiations. First, the primary focus of settling labor and management
conflict is
through the voluntary modes of settling disputes. We first avail of the
grievance procedures that are usually provided in the collective bargaining
agreement. In the absence of a CBA. they are usually provided in the internal
rules and regulations of the company. Then we avail of the conciliation
proceedings, which is part and parcel of the voluntary modes of settling
disputes usually under the guidance of the Ministry of Labor.
In the 1973 Constitution, there is a specific proviso for compulsory
arbitration. As has been previously cited by the Committee Chairman. there
is an
overwhelming reaction against a specific mandate for compulsory
arbitration. Even the management sector is very reluctant in reinstating the
same formula
in this Constitution, such that when we attempted to incorporate in the
committee report the phrase promote voluntary modes of settling
disputes, the
idea is to focus primarily on the voluntary modes of settling disputes rather
than to preempt the procedures of settling management and labor conflict
through compulsory arbitration. We very well know that the effect of
compulsory arbitration is that any labor-management conflict is immediately
certified
by the National Labor Relations Commission, and that if there is an
impending strike, automatically, by compulsory mandate of the law and upon
certification, the strike would have to be lifted. Both labor and management
are in confluence in terms of their position that all disputes should first be
approached by exhausting voluntary modes. This does not preclude,
however, Congress from providing for statutory implementation of other
modes of settling
disputes.

With respect to Section 5, line 20, the terms farmers and farm workers
were used. Does the sponsor understand that the term farmers includes
tenants,
whether on leasehold or sharehold? Am I correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: And that the word farmworkers refers to employed farmers
in a plantation by administration?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: And when we talk of the phrase to own directly, we mean
the principle of direct ownership by the tiller?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: And when we talk of collectively, we mean communal
ownership, stewardship or State ownership?
MS. NIEVA: In this section, we conceive of cooperatives; that is, farmers
cooperatives owning the land, not the State.
MR. NOLLEDO: And when we talk of collectively, referring to farmers
cooperatives, do the farmers own specific areas of land where they only
unite in
their efforts?
MS. NIEVA: That is one way.
MR. NOLLEDO: Because I understand that there a two basic systems
involved: the moshav type of agriculture and the kibbutz. So, are both
contemplated in
the report?
MR. TADEO: Ang dalawa kasing pamamaraan ng pagpapatupad ng tunay na
reporma sa lupa ay ang pagmamay-ari ng lupa na hahatiin natin sa
individual na
pagmamay-ari directly at ang tinatawag na sama-samang gagawin ng
mga magbubukid. Tulad sa Negros, ang gusto ng mga magbubukid ay gawin
nila itong
cooperative or collective farm. Ang ibig sabihin ay sama-sama nilang
sasakahin.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, nais ko lang dagdagan iyong sagot ni

Ginoong Tadeo.
MR. BENNAGEN: Kasi, doon sa collective ownership, kasali din iyong
communal ownership ng mga minorya. Halimbawa sa Tanay, noong
gumawa kami ng isang
pananaliksik doon, nagtaka sila kung bakit kailangan pang magkaroon ng
land reform na kung saan ay bibigyan sila ng tig-iisang titulo. At sila nga ay
nagpunta sa Ministry of Agrarian Reform at sinabi nila na hindi ito ang gusto
nila; kasi sila naman ay magkakamag-anak Ang gusto nila ay lupa at hindi na
kailangan ang tig-iisang titulo. Maraming ganitong kaso mula sa Cordillera
hanggang Zambales, Mindoro at Mindanao, kayat kasali ito sa konsepto ng
collective ownership.
Marami pong salamat.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I continue my questions, Madam President?
On line 22 of Section 5, with respect to the words just distribution of all
agricultural lands, am I right in saying that agricultural lands refers
only to privately owned lands, because retention limits and payment of
compensation are mentioned?
MR. TADEO: Ang ibig sabihin nito ay all arable public and private lands
sapagkat sa Section 7, makikita natin dito ang principles of agrarian reform
in
the disposition of other natural resources, including lands of public domain.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is the reason I ask about that. I presume that Section 7
covers lands of the public domain and that Section 5, lines 22 and 23, should
necessarily refer only to private lands. I am calling the attention of the
Committee to some conflicts because one does not talk of retention limits or
the
system of compensation with respect to lands covered by the public domain.
So, I ask that the Committee reconcile the two provisions when the
appropriate time comes, because the term all is used and then two
instances were
mentioned that will qualify the term all agricultural lands. That will indicate
that all agricultural lands contemplated in Section 5 should refer only

to privately owned lands.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, Section 7 would include public
agricultural lands. So, the reason we mentioned retention limits, as the
Gentleman
correctly pointed out in Section 5, is that this would apply to privately owned
lands.
What has the Committee done about the small landholders? Small
landholders, as defined by the Supreme Court, refer to those who own 24
hectares or less,
because the Supreme Court itself, in the case of Nilo vs. Court of Appeals,
decided in 1984 that small landholders consist of the retirees, the public
school teachers, etc., who acquired lands out of their small savings because
they wanted to be farmers during the period of retirement.
Does the Committee agree with me that these small landholders should be
given adequate protection and that their landholdings should not be subject
to
expropriation in order to give the same to the others and thus create a new
group of impoverished people?
MS. NIEVA: That is why we have provided here on line 23, subject to such
retention limits as Congress may prescribe.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, if the members of the Committee will not
mind, when we consulted with the farmers in Naga City, who were well
experienced and
very knowledgeable, they told us that it is not the area of the land that
should count but its productive state. It seems to me that land reform
experts
keep on saying that the land area is material and pertinent and should be
given primary consideration. Does the Committee agree with me then that it
is the
productive state of the land that should prevail? Because it may happen that
one owns 24 hectares but the production will be much lesser compared to
two
hectares owned by a farmer, because the 24 hectares, no matter how much
fertilizer one may use, will not yield what the two hectares may yield. Am I
correct? Does Commissioner Tadeo agree with me?
MR. TADEO: Iyong tanong ni Ginoong Nolledo kangina tungkol sa retention
limits na nasa line 23 ay patungkol sa owner-cultivator. Magkakaroon ng
limit ang
mga may-ari ng lupa na sila na rin ang nagbubungkal nito. The phrase
retention limits refers to owner-cultivator. Agricultural lands refer to all
arable
public and private lands regardless of crop, size of landholding and tenurial
arrangement. Ayon sa karanasan ng magbubukid, ang pangunahing batayan
ng
pagpapaunlad ng kanilang kabuhayan at kapakanan ay ang pagmamay-ari
ng lupa. Naniniwala silang sa pamamagitan ng pagmamay-ari ng lupa,
magkakaroon sila ng
labis na kapital. Ang kapital na hinahanap natin sa labas ng bansa ay
natutulog lamang sa lupa. Ito ang natutulog na surplus kapital na kung
magagamit ay
mapauunlad ng magbubukid ang kanilang kabuhayan.
MR. NOLLEDO: Salamat po sa inyong paliwanag.
Commissioner Monsod would like to speak.
MR. MONSOD: Other considerations when we talk about retention limits to be
determined by Congress would be economic size and local conditions. As the
Commissioner said, there may be some areas where the economic size will
differ because of local conditions. These are some of the considerations that
will
be taken into account by Congress. We just do not want to provide the
details because that is not our work.
MR. NOLLEDO: With the kind indulgence of my colleagues in the Commission,
I still have two or three questions. With respect to Section 6, lines 27 and 28,
with emphasis on the words planning, organizing, and management of the
program, I would like to underscore the word management. This particular
section
also covers cooperatives and farm workers. Would the Commissioner agree
with me if I conclude that it is perhaps the intent of the Committee that farm
workers will also participate in the management of the farm in some way?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: So the farm workers who are plain laborers can participate in
the management of the farm where they work as employees, not as tenants.
MR. TADEO: As regular farm workers or even non-regular farm workers.
MR. NOLLEDO: Farm workers in the contemplation of the Code of Agrarian
Reforms, refer to farm laborers without tenancy relationship.
MR. TADEO: Oo, iyan ang ibig sabihin ng farm workers. Dapat umiral din sa
farm workers ang principles of agrarian reforms, hindi lamang sa tillers of the
soil with tenancy relationship. Sinasabi nating talagang kasama ang mga
farmers at farm workers. Ginamit natin itong farmworkers sa kadahilanang
itong
mga manggagawa natin sa mga babuyan at manukan ay agricultural workers
din.
MR. NOLLEDO: What is the concept of the Committee about agro-industrial
farms owned by corporations? To what extent may they own landholdings? I
did not
find any provision in the report about these entities that may be owned by
Filipinos or perhaps partly by aliens.
MS. NIEVA: I think that would pertain more to the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony.
MR. TADEO: Kay Commissioner Nolledo, ayon kay Dr. Mahar Mangahas, nang
imbitahin namin siya sa isang public hearing, ang kanyang definition ng
land ay
ito: In principle, the term land should include all forms of natural resources
including mineral, forest and water resources, whether public or private,
whether titled or untitled, or whether presently controlled by Filipinos or nonFilipinos over which there is social conflict induced by an unjust
distribution. Kasama po iyan.
MR. NOLLEDO: Salamat po.
MR. MONSOD: May I just clarify one more point?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: When the Commissioner asked about the phrase planning,
organizing, and management, he should have noticed that the phrase that
follows is of
the program which refers to the agrarian reform and natural resources
program. Perhaps, he should distinguish that from participating in the
management of
companies engaged in agriculture. This section does not refer to that.
However, those who work in those companies would be covered by the
provisions on
labor where we are talking about their participation in policy-making and
decision-making affecting their rights and benefits.
My last question is on page 4, Section 13, line 9. We talk of social services

available to all citizens at affordable cost. That means they have to pay.
What is affordable to the middle-class may be different from what is
affordable to families belonging to the upper class.
I am concerned that paupers die because of lack of medical care. We often
notice that newspapers campaign for funds to save the lives of poor people
who
are sick.
I would like to say in advance to the Committee that this Member would
present an amendment to the effect that the State shall provide free medical
care to
paupers. Paupers are those who have no source of livelihood or if they have
some source of livelihood, they do not earn enough to maintain their family
even in a hand-to-mouth existence. I will not accept as a reason that the
State cannot afford. If there is a will, there is always a way. I think it is the
duty of the State to see to it that no Filipino shall die because of lack of
medical care. Does the Commissioner agree with me?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think we will welcome that amendment at the proper time.
MR. RAMA: The next interpellator is Commissioner Guingona.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, this is just for clarification regarding
Section 3, line 1 on page 2. When we talk of the phrase promote full
employment,
do I understand that the Commissioner also includes in this concept or
perception the free choice of employment?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. GUINGONA: Would this free choice of employment be without prejudice
to known union security measures, such as the close-shop agreement? Would
it affect
these
MS. NIEVA: I am not very clear about what the Commissioner is asking.
MR. MONSOD: Perhaps, the Commissioner is referring to Section 4 because I

think full employment on Section 3 is a macroeconomic approach saying
that the
State should pursue policies that will increase the number of employment
opportunities and will try to promote full employment in that sense.
When the Commissioner is talking about specific labor-management relations
at the firm level, he is referring to Section 4. Maybe Commissioner Aquino
can
amplify this matter.
MR. GUINGONA: Is the Commissioner saying that it will not affect those
security agreements?
MS. AQUINO: The only concern of the provision on full employment is to
address the two problems of employment unemployment and
underemployment. It does
not have any effect on the union-shop or the close-shop agreements in the
security of employees.
Secondly, after having gone through the work that we have been doing since
June 2, and when I say we, I refer not only to the honorable Commissioners
but
to the members of our Secretariat, I fully appreciate a right which is
contained in this Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which our country
is a
signatory and which has been ratified by us the right to rest and leisure. I
wonder whether this could be included in the Article on Social Justice since
this is provided under Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which says:
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
MS. NIEVA: We shall be amenable to any suggestions or amendments at the
proper time.
MR. GUINGONA: When we talk of social justice, one usually connects it with
social security. I wonder what would be the reaction of the honorable
members of
the Committee if later on I propose an amendment to the effect that the
State shall aim to maintain a comprehensive system of social insurance for
the
protection of every person from the economic consequences of
unemployment, old age, sickness, disability, widowhood, and other such

circumstances.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. As we said, we would gladly entertain any suggestion.
The last point, Madam President, is about housing. I think all of us are
convinced about the importance of housing and I see that the Committee has
provided for this concern in this Article on Social Justice. But as indicated by
the honorable Chairman, the provision here is more of a declaration of
principle which would not be self-executory.
Commissioner Villegas and I submitted a proposed resolution which will
provide for a special provident fund to be used exclusively to provide homes
for the
homeless poor at subsidized costs. This we gathered from the concept of a
BAYANIKASAN which was espoused by the late Dr. Salvador Araneta.
Apparently, the
Committee did not accept the basis of securing the necessary funds. I
wonder whether the Committee could perhaps study the possibility of finding
a source
for this special provident fund because although, as former Senator Rodrigo
has said, we should make our Constitution brief and concise, we should also
be
aware that all these declarations in the Constitution would be meaningless
unless they are realized. And as former Senator Manglapus said:
If you need to give details in order to give meaning to a provision in the
Constitution, then there is nothing wrong with giving or spelling out details.
MS. AQUINO: We appreciate the concern of the Commissioner. But this
Committee has actually become the forum already of a lot of specific
grievances and
specific demands, such that, understandably, we may have been, at one
time or another, dangerously treading into the functions of legislation. Our
only
plea to the Commission is to focus our perspective on the matter of social
justice and its rightful place in the Constitution. What we envision here is a
mandate specific enough that would give impetus for statutory
implementation. We would caution ourselves in terms of the judicious
exercise of
self-censorship against treading into the functions of legislation.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized.

This is in connection with Section 4 on the rights of workers. Before asking
the questions, I just would like to state that there are at least three other
provisions which we have approved in various parts of our New Constitution
which are relevant to this. The first one is the provision on the civil service
which provides that the civil service embraces all instrumentalities, agencies
and branches of the government, including government- owned or controlled
corporations with original charters. The second provision is also found in the
same subarticle on the civil service. This provision reads:
Notwithstanding any provision in this article of the Constitution, the right to
self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
Finally, the third relevant provision is the one found under the Bill of Rights
which provides:
The right of the people, whether in the private or public sector, to form
unions shall not be abridged.
In the case of the first provision on civil service, I have always maintained
that this provision about the scope or extent of the term civil service
does not nullify the Bill of Rights provision on the right to form unions; it
merely defines the scope of the civil service; it does not grant any right,
much less does it deprive any group of workers, whether in the government
or in the private sector, of any right, particularly that of self-organization
and with its concerted activity. With regard to the second provision also on
the civil service, I have said that it reinforces the workers right to
organize and engage in concerted activities which must necessarily include
the right to strike. About the third provision in the Bill of Rights, I have
said that it embraces the right to engage in concerted activities. One of
these concerted activities is to negotiate with the employer on terms and
conditions of employment, and another concerted activity is to declare a
strike as an ultimate tool of labor in case of disengagement from
negotiations
with management.
Section 4 in the proposed Article on Social Justice reads:
The State shall guarantee the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted activities for their
own protection, welfare and mutual aid, including the right to strike.
The first question is: When we speak of workers, do we have in mind those in
the private as well as in the public sectors?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we do. However, we have that reservation as regards the
members of the Armed Forces and the civil defense.
MR. FOZ: Madam Chairman, I was informed before that the original provision
on this Article would make an exception with regard to members of the
Armed
Forces and members of the civil defense, referring to members of the police.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee is sharply divided on this matter. In fact, the
subcommittee report carried a specific proviso which would exempt
members as of
the Armed Forces, members of the civil service and the civil defense from
availing of the right to strike. But in view of the very strong divergence of
opinions within the Committee, I think there was a consensus to just reflect it
for purposes of the committee report and throw it to the body for
deliberation.
MR. FOZ: With that last response of Commissioner Aquino, is the
Commissioner saying that the Committee has no precise intention as to the
scope of this
first sentence under Section 4, whether this should apply to both private and
public employees?
MR. MONSOD: What the Committee is saying is that it recognizes that there
may be exceptions to this rule and we want to throw it to the body precisely
to
define it more clearly before it is finalized.
MR. FOZ: The Committee has in mind members of the Armed Forces and
members of the police force.
MR. MONSOD: As among the exceptions?
MR. FOZ: What other exceptions could there be?
MR. MONSOD: That is why we wanted to throw it to the floor for discussion in
case the body may want to discuss other exceptions. But from our point of
view, it is also possible that we will arrive at a phrase saying in accordance
with law. There are many ways to tackle that issue.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
I have another question. Section 4, line 4 says: collective bargaining and

negotiations. What is the difference between collective bargaining and
negotiations? Do they not amount to the same thing?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. Collective negotiations are especially intended for the great
majority of workers who, are not covered by CBAs. We feel that there are
different ways of negotiating for the protection of their rights. Generally,
when we say collective bargaining, we refer to those that are unionized and
covered by CBAs. As mentioned here, those constitute only about 3.1
percent of the total labor force of the country, so we felt that there has to be
worked
out some other way of negotiating for the rights of these greater majority of
people who are not covered by CBAs.
MR. FOZ: In other words, in a private firm for instance, the employees may
group among themselves or organize an association short of calling their
association a labor union?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, there are different ways.
MR. FOZ: Then they can negotiate with management to terms or conditions
of employment.
MR. FOZ: Short of organizing themselves into a normal labor union or
organization.
MS. NIEVA: These may be preliminary steps that they may take.
MR. FOZ: I recall a provision under our existing Labor Code precisely
encouraging, without making it mandatory, the formation of what it calls
employees
committees. These are voluntary groups of employees to be set up within
different companies. The only unfortunate thing about that provision is that it
gives management the initiative to form such employees committees. But
then, perhaps the law involving the matter could provide that the initiative
should
come from the employees themselves to avoid any management influence in
the running of such committees.
MS. NIEVA: That is right. This can be left again to the legislature to work out.
MS. AQUINO: May I clarify the concept of collective negotiation. It is an
innovative concept introduced to us by the Institute of Labor and
Management
Relations of UP. The specific concern of this concept is, first, to address the
difficulties of the nonunionized employees and laborers and second, that of
the government employees. These two groups would suffer the same
difficulty in not having a specific collective bargaining agent to represent
them. So the
process of collective negotiation is to offset that disadvantage already. The
idea is to recognize it and provide a constitutional mandate for the process
of collective negotiation.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
My next question is on page 2, line 8 of Section 4 which states: participation
in policy and decision-making. Does the Committee have in mind
representatives of the employees being allowed to sit in the board of
directors of the companies organized as corporations?
MR. MONSOD: The Commissioners question has relation to the earlier
question of Commissioner Nolledo. We suggest that the Commissioner read
that, together
with the following phrase: affecting their rights and benefits. The proper
implementation of that provision would rest to a large degree on
management
and labor themselves because that is not something that can be mandated
by the Constitution. In some cases, labor does not want to be in certain
bodies of
the management and the company for their own reasons; in others they do.
So we are leaving a lot of room here for management and labor to discuss
and agree
on the areas on which the participation should be promoted.
MR. FOZ: But may not Congress in implementing this provision provide that
employees should be allowed to sit in the board of directors of a corporation
to
participate in the discussion of matters affecting their rights and benefits?
MR. MONSOD: If the Commissioner is saying that they will be invited to
participate in the discussion when it affects their rights and benefits, that
probably is in order. I do not know whether the Commissioner means that
they are the elected directors of the company but can only participate in
areas
affecting their rights and benefits. I do not think that the intent of this
Committee is to tell Congress to mandate that labor sit on the board. There is
nothing in this provision that says that.
MR. FOZ: But they may be allowed under such a law to sit in the board of
directors if the matters on hand to be decided will affect their rights and
benefits.
MR. MONSOD: All these details could be a matter of legislation.
MR. FOZ: That is right.
My last question which is about compulsory arbitration has been taken up by
a previous Commissioner during the interpellations. I would just like to get it
clarified again that we are not ruling out compulsory arbitration in certain
cases, so that the law to be passed by Congress providing for compulsory
arbitration in certain serious cases may serve as an ultimate way of resolving
industrial or labor disputes in case of failure of labor and capital to
decide or to settle their own disputes.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you, Madam President and members of the
Committee.
First of all, may I make a few comments on the Committee provisions on
social justice, which I see as a unifying theme for several articles. I agree
with
the Chairman of the Committee when she said that this is the centerpiece. I
have difficulty in seeing this as a separate article unless it is of a general
nature. I had hoped that some provisions on agrarian reform and on labor
could be included in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. In this
way,
we do not give the Article on National Economy and Patrimony the
impression that it is dealing primarily with the formal economy but not with
the
subsistence sector which consists of the majority of our population.
What I am saying is that the concept of non-monetized economy is perhaps
an area that could be addressed by both the Articles on Social Justice and on
National Economy and Patrimony. Likewise, I see the need, after reviewing
about 25 constitutional provisions in different countries, for locating the
concepts of social justice within a more comprehensive. framework. It is one
which views rural transformation and the delivery of services side by side
with the transformation in attitudes and the transformation of some of the
values and philosophies of development. I see that this Article is addressed

to
the need to move from a zero-sum society where one sector wins and the
other loses to a nonzero-sum society which is a society of sharing. I,
therefore, see the need for linkages with non-formal education, attitudinal
changes, a value placed on egalitarianism, and, further, a reorientation in the
attitudes of workers so that they may become more productive and able to
compete in the formal economy.
Having said this, I see the need to harmonize the provisions with the Articles
on Human Resources and on National Economy and Patrimony. In Section 5,
the
provision on Agrarian Reform, I do not see the States concern for forging
partnership with nongovernment and voluntary community-based
institutions. I
think that those of us who have examined the history of land reform have
seen successful examples of voluntary land sharing. The Negros example, for
instance, has merit in terms of a model for future land reform. Let me cite a
study of the Club of Rome which reviewed the impact of 20 years of rural
development in all the Third World countries. They found that governmentled development has led to more poverty and a greater widening of
disparities.
Therefore, I hope to see the promotion of partnership with nongovernment
agencies which perhaps is what is meant by the provisions on peoples
organizations except that it is not as explicit as I had hoped.
In Section 9, page 3, there is a provision on the promotion of integrated
development of agricultural fishing and marine resources. I think we have to
go
back to the experiences in the past 20 years of implementation of large-scale
integrated area development program of the government which failed to
improve
the lives of the marginalized groups. It failed to trickle down to the poorest of
the poor. The concept of integrated development may not be perceived as a
positive concept. There are also new modes of organizing development in
the rural areas which are smaller scale integrated development projects built
around the smaller communities. We have nucleus states which are
patterned after Malaysia, Kenya and Indonesia. We have communal farming.
And I see that
although this is the intent, perhaps there is a need to come up with more
specific and alternative ways of organizing labor and rural institutions. I say
this because, as I have said, at least 25 Constitutions have been more
specific in presenting alternative models of development. Although there is
one
mention of cooperatives in this Article, I am quite disappointed that it has not
been given more mention. In many countries, cooperative associations are
given due importance as models of organizing social and economic

institutions. If we review the experience in cooperatives, we find many
successful
programs in developing countries as well as in developed countries like the
United States, England, Scandinavia, Japan and others. I think that we are
perhaps still suffering from the negative history of cooperatives. Perhaps, it is
because they have not been given their rightful place in terms of the
appropriate legal mandate, as well as structures of government.
I, therefore, hope that since a provision in the Declaration of Principles
supports cooperativism as a principle, the Committee may see fit the need to
include one on democratic cooperatives. The latter could serve as
instruments in guiding the ownership, utilization and exploitation of natural
resources,
as well as in the operation of public utilities. I hope that during the period of
amendments, I would have a chance to suggest some amendments along my
concern for the need to see social justice within a more comprehensive
framework which is linked with attitudinal changes and a transformation of
the
development philosophy of society.
MS. NIEVA: I thank the Commissioner for those observations. I think
Commissioner Bennagen would like to add his remarks.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, may I be recognized?
MR. BENNAGEN: The observations of Commissioner Rosario Braid are well
taken. As a matter of fact, we would like to emphasize that the Committee on
Social
Justice has had the greatest number of consultations with various sectors of
our constituency and that we spent a great deal of time in trying to evolve a
comprehensive framework which, unfortunately, could not be included in this
report. At some point, we had with us several formulations: one including
something like around 70 provisions but we thought that that would just not
do in a Constitution. What we did was to synthesize and digest these
provisions, and this is the result. We wish to assure our fellow Commissioners
that we spent a great deal of time, a great deal of debate in trying to come
up with an Article that seeks to encompass the various philosophies that
came out as a result of the debate but not to raise false hopes among our
citizens. With an Article like this in the Philippine society, all would be well in
the next decades or even in centuries.
We did not fail to incorporate aspects of attitudinal change, as well as

structural change, and these are fairly evident in the first two sections. As
indicated in Section 1, we did emphasize that social justice should be a
social, economic, political and moral imperative. The moral component is
important
because we feel that a justice provision should be on the side of the poor,
the disadvantaged, the so-called deprived and the oppressed. This is a point
that has been raised a number of times especially by social scientists.
Specifically, I would like to mention Dr. Mahar Mangahas who, in his
extensive
studies on social justice, feels that the State itself has been a major source of
injustice and that, therefore, the State should be able to correct that
and must assume a moral stance in relation to the poor, the deprived and
the oppressed, a moral stance that we feel should also permeate the
bureaucracy,
the technocracy and eventually, with the changes in structures, also the
whole of our Philippine society.
We are arguing therefore that our best efforts tried to encompass the results
of the numerous consultations which in a sense could be captured in terms of
the cry for the correction of centuries of social injustice. As to the specific
linkages between this Article and the others, we should be able to see
those when all the other Articles shall have been seen in their
interrelationship.
With that general comment, I would like to go to Section 9, which is
specifically referred to in relation to the duty of the State to promote
integrated
development of agricultural, fishing and marine resources. When we
discussed these, we did not have in mind the experiences of integrated area
development,
a concept which is very good on paper but extremely bad in implementation.
Note also that we emphasized that this integrated development project
should
respond to the basic needs of the people. I think the integrated area
development projects responded to the demand of the external market
rather than to
the needs of the people. We also said that the efforts of integrating the
development processes in agriculture, in fishing and marine resources should
also
provide the basis for industrializing the country. That was the intent of the
provision and no reference was ever made to the integrated area
development
concept.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, this is just a small reference to what

Commissioner Rosario Braid said. When we talk about voluntary distribution
and
cooperation between owners and farmers, I think that is the reason Section 5
says: To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake. It is because
we
feel that there are voluntary arrangements that are being made and should
be respected and encouraged.
MR. RAMA: I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Regalado be
recognized.
Before I pose some questions, I wish to assure the Committee that I am 101
percent in favor of the objective of the social justice provisions because the
touchstone is as attributed to the late President Magsaysay He who
has less in life should be more favored in law. This actually dates back to
even
the 17th century legal philosophers and writers who state that, in the
exercise of proprietary rights, it should be bajo el principio de que a los que
la
vida ha dado menos desele mas por la ley.
I also take note of the observations of one of the Committee members that
there was an attempt at self-censorship here in that they tried to condense
so
many provisions to make these appear as a sort of a declaration of
principles, although this Committee has desired to be emancipated from the
original
Committee on Declaration of Principles and State Policies.
I notice that the 1935 Constitution had only one section on social justice; the
same is true with the 1973 Constitution. But they seem to have stood us in
good stead; and I am a little surprised why, despite that attempt at selfcensorship, there are certain provisions here which are properly for
legislation,
which I will take up, of course, at the proper time. But many of these
formulations here forgive me for saying so, because of my benighted
limitations on
the concept appear to be a little too technocratic for me, will the
Commissioner please help me by clarifying some of these esoteric
cogitations so I
will know how I will vote when this is presented on the floor, instead of voting
with a group as they vote, for the simple reason that I do not belong to
any group in this Commission.
First, Section 1, line 7, attempts a definition of what social justice is, when it
says, Social justice, as a social, economic, political, moral
imperative . . . If that was an attempt at a definition, I wonder why the
Committee did not look at, as part of the imperatives, the legal aspect.
Because
after all, regarding social justice for those who are not lawyers, but every
lawyer knows this the classic definition given by Justice Laurel in the
case of Calalang vs. Williams is:
Social justice is neither atomism, nor communism, nor anarchy but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by
the State,
so that justice, in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least
be approximated.
I do not know why the Committee sort of overlooked the legal imperative for
purposes of social justice. Perhaps there might be a reason. Then it also says
that it shall be the primary consideration in the pursuit of national
development. It seems to give the impression that all other considerations
should
take a back seat to the social justice aspect.
Line 13 states: the inalienable right to human dignity, and redistribute
wealth and power . . . I do not know whether the power referred to here is
political power vis-a-vis Section 19, or some other kind of power. I suppose
the Committee can help me along this line later.
Line 16 states: shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition
of property and its fruits. We all know that the ownership of property
has, among its attributes, the jus fruendi the right to the fruits. Since it is
specifically provided here, we could be misunderstood; or is it correct,
or was it intentional that this phrase thereby excluded the other attributes of
ownership, like the jus possidendi the right to possess; the jus
disponendi the right to dispose; the jus abutendi the right to abuse; and
the jus destruendi the right to destroy? Here the Committee singled out
the
right to the fruits. I wonder why. Or should that have been already implied as
part of all the attributes of ownership?
The phrase and promote the establishment of independent and self-reliant
socio-political and economic structures, has for its antecedent property.
Perhaps at a later time, the Committee could help me find my way into the
maze of the statements as to what are the self-reliant, socio-political and

economic structures involved for purposes of these restrictions on property.
On the other portion about the right to strike, I will leave that later to the
Committee after the comments of Commissioner Foz.
Line 19 refers to a genuine reform program founded on the primacy of the
right of farmers and farm workers. I wonder if it means that leasehold
tenancy is
thereby proscribed under this provision because it speaks of the primary
right of farmers and farm workers to own directly or collectively the lands
they
till. As also mentioned by Commissioner Tadeo, farm workers include those
who work in piggeries and poultry projects.
I was wondering whether I am wrong in my appreciation that if somebody
puts up a piggery or a poultry project and for that purpose hires farm
workers
therein, these farm workers will automatically have the right to own
eventually, directly or ultimately or collectively, the land on which the
piggeries
and poultry projects were constructed.
The provision says all agricultural lands, arable, public and private. Of
course, we have the rice and corn lands right now as part of the agricultural
reform program. Of course, I understand there is a move to include coconut
lands, fishponds and sugarcane lands, but I was wondering about agricultural
lands which are exclusively devoted to the cultivating and raising of
vegetables. How about those which are used only for feed grains not rice
and corn
like sorghum? Are they all included since the phrase all agricultural lands,
arable, public or private agricultural lands is all-embracing? Perhaps, I
could later ask for a clarification.
Again, this is for the cogitative pleasure of the Committee over the weekend
so that by Monday, I may have succeeded in depriving another committee of
a
happy weekend for the simple reason that I do not enjoy any weekend
because I work on weekends. That is why ever since I was concominuted in
this
organization, I have lost my weekends.
Commissioner Tadeo had mentioned self-cultivation. I think he used the
phrase ang nagbubungkal ng lupa. I wonder if that involves personal
cultivation or
cultivation through workers because we all know there has been plaint of
schoolteachers. They were able to acquire a little piece of land less than
seven
hectares as covered by P.D. No. 27 for their old age and retirement. If we
were to require personal cultivation, I do not know how a poor retired
schoolteacher, at the age of 65, can still handle the plow and the harrow.
On another matter: Congress may prescribe a fair and progressive system of
compensation. I do not know if it is embraced in the concept of just
compensation under the Rules of Court, as well as in jurisprudence, on the
matter of appropriation as an exercise of the States right of eminent
domain.
This merely means the simple formula of just compensation the fair
market value plus the consequential damages minus the consequential
benefits, provided
that the consequential benefits shall not exceed the consequential damages.
But what bothers me is the progressive system of compensation. That again,
to my mind, is within the arcanum of the economists because I have never
pretended to be an economist I do not think I will ever be one for the
simple reason that monetarily, I do not know how to count.
Section 7 provides that:
. . . the State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform in the disposition of
other natural resources . . .
It has been mentioned here that natural resources include mineral lands. I do
not know whether offshore mineral lands within the continental shelf are also
included here. The provision includes inland or offshore marine and fishing
resources. I was wondering, however, whether it would include waters used
for
hydroelectric power. Assuming that they are all included since Section 7 says
that the State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform, I was wondering
what scheme or formula could be used for the principles of agrarian reform
in applying them to mineral lands, whether offshore or inland, forest lands,
sources of hydroelectric power; and with respect to mineral lands, whether it
will affect the age-old concept of the regalian doctrine with respect to
minerals under ones own property.
Section 8 is with respect to the communal use of marine and fishing
resources. I assume that the Committee has taken into account the problem
posed to the
Laguna Lake Development Authority on which there was a very strong
sentiment when we had a public hearing at Calamba.
Section 9 again is a matter on which I will seek the assistance and succor of
the Committee later to explain to me what is meant by an integrated
development of agricultural, fishing and marine resources.
The provision also speaks of the industrialization objective of the country. I
do not know what is the objective of the present government, whether we
are
going to stick to an agricultural economy like Thailand which has weathered
several crises, or whether we are aspiring for an industrialized program
wherein we suffered serious financial reverses of those 10 or 11 major
projects, or we are opting instead for the agro-industrial system.
With respect to Section 10, it states that: The State shall regulate the
ownership and use of urban land, as distinguished from rural land. In 1984,
there were decisions of the Supreme Court with respect to the distinction
between urban and rural land. One held that the distinction between urban
and
rural land was dependent on the actual use or the purpose to which the land
was devoted. The other decision was to the effect that whether it is urban or
rural depends upon its geographical situation, whether it is within a town,
municipality or city or outside thereof. This I will later ask the Committee to
enlighten me on.
On Section 11 regarding urban poor dwellers, I do not know if the discussion
yesterday covered the concept of urban poor dwellers, or to put it bluntly,
squatters. We have an Anti-Squatting Law and a presidential decree on antisquatting. I do not know if that was the purpose here, but I would think it
would refer to squatters because of the provision about dwellings and
habitations.
I have no property that can be squatted upon by squatters and
squattresses in the urban area, but what bothers me is the provision: No
resettlement
shall take place without consultation with the communities to be relocated.
Will it be the terms of relocation, the circumstances under which they can be
relocated or the places to which they will be resettled or relocated? For
instance, they will say that they are willing to be resettled; they will leave
the land on which they are squatting but they want to be resettled or
relocated in a particular community. If they cannot be resettled there, they
will not
agree to be resettled. Considering their involvement in its planning and
implementation, could they also be given the right to be consulted and insist
on
the type of dwellings that they will be resettled to, as well as the facilities
thereof?
In other words, the provision is so broad that they can say they would be
willing to be resettled only in such a place provided that it has three
bedrooms
and two bathrooms. We actually resort to reductio ad absurdum. I am just
trying to point out the dangers in the broad scope of language because while
there
are those who affect the mastery of the language, we must also be careful
about the tyranny of language.
There is still a provision here that I cannot really understand. It says:
The housing program shall extend to low-income rural dwellers in the context
of a comprehensive agrarian reform and development program.
Does this refer to residential lands classified as private property but on which
the squatters outside the urban areas have settled and who now demand to
be placed under a comprehensive agrarian reform program? It would be a
little dangerous because sometimes we give farm lots to our workers in the
provinces
which they are occupying in order to facilitate their access to the lands which
they till; and yet they may demand these farm lots as part of a
comprehensive agrarian reform program so that ultimately the owner of the
land will be left with only his own residential lot. All his other residential
lots on which these farmers, who were originally given just an entitlement to
possess and use for their dwelling, will eventually go to the farmers, in
addition to the agricultural lands they till. In other words, the means granted
to them to till the riceland was also at the same time an enabling
mechanism for them to eventually oust the owner from both the agricultural
portion of his lands, as well as the residential part thereof.
With respect to Section 16, I believe I will seek guidance from the
Committee, either together or individually, in understanding the phrase
optimum
working conditions especially in relation to their maternal functions. I will
have to ask my daughter who is a pediatrician what are these optimum
working conditions which have to be taken into account in connection with
maternal functions. Why maternal functions are specified here, I do not know
because definitely I am sure women cannot have paternal functions.
Section 17 states:
The State shall . . . promote the welfare and well-being of women to fully
realize their capabilities in the service of the country.
Does this refer to educational service, civil service or military service?
Section 19 provides:
. . . peoples organization as a principal means of empowering the people to
pursue and protect through peaceful means their . . . aspirations.
I do not know what is meant by political participation because we have had a
lot of discussions here about political participation by the common tao, not
only for political purposes. So, I hope that by Monday, after we shall have
lost our respective weekends, we can meet here early and then after the
Committee has guided me, perhaps I can formulate some acceptable,
rational and sane amendments. But if the Committee can explain them fully
to me, then I
will not participate anymore because I am satisfied and that will save the
Secretariat the duty of having to mention my participation in the Journal of
this Commission, such mention I am not particularly interested in at all.
Thank you.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you.
I think Commissioner Garcia who is responsible for the section on social
justice and peoples participation would like to respond.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, before Commissioner Garcia responds, I
would like to respond to the tenor of Commissioner Regalado which smacks
of
professional ethnocentrism, meaning superiority, just because he can talk in
legalistic terms and we cannot express ourselves in the way that the legalist
minds can express themselves. His view that we were irrational and that we
had to come out with a more sane and rational presentation of our provisions
certainly sounded very condescending.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, I said I intend to come up with sane and
rational amendments. There was no attempt at legalese. In fact, what I
pointed out
was that some phrases are actually phrases used by technocrats. How many
of us really understand these phrases? I confess, without any attempt at
self-delusion, that there are some phrases I really cannot understand, an
example of which is an integrated economic program. I frankly do not know
what
it really is. Other phrases like socio-economic structures and processes,
frankly, I do not know what they mean. I am always the first to confess to
something I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the next speaker of the Committee?
Commissioner Garcia is recognized.

MR. GARCIA: Actually, one of the parts which were deleted in the version was
the definition of social justice.
Earlier in our deliberations in the Committee, we were striving to recognize
one definition; of course, it was not a very easy task. In fact, I think
during the period of amendments, even the Committee members will find
out that we differ. I recognize that this is a very complex area and, therefore,
even
among the members of the Committee, there may be differences.
Anyway, let us discuss the definition and concept of social justice. I would
like to discuss with the body one of our earlier formulations of social
justice which are not incorporated in the document but which we discussed
in the subcommittee. In speaking of social justice, we deal with justice not as
practised among individuals but justice as embodied in the structures and
institutions of society; namely, its system of law such as regulating the
relationship between the owner and the worker of the land; or the
relationship between the man who sells his labor and the manager of the
company or the
owner of that business enterprise. It is distribution of wealth and political
power. I mention this precisely because one of the insistent points
throughout this whole Article is that if we were to have justice, there will
have to be a redistribution of not only economic wealth but also political
power. What we intended to say when we spoke of power is that political
power must also be in the hands of the majority so that they can help shape
the
future that affect their lives. Regarding peoples organization, the Gentleman
will find this as the enabling vehicle through which justice can be attained
through some kind of involvement and participation in decision-making.
Finally, also in the norms and common understanding which govern this, a
concept of social justice involves a vision of man in society. Fundamental to
this
vision are two notions which must be held in a sort of dynamic tension. First,
man is a person with personal dignity and possessed of certain rights which
the State did not confer and cannot take away. He can never illegitimately
become simply the instrument of another man or of the State. Also, man has
certain inalienable rights which are inherent to his dignity.
Secondly and this is very important he is by nature a member of various
communities. He is a member of the family; he can be a member of
indigenous
communities; he can be a member of a sector; and finally he is a member of
the national and the world community. He needs these communities to
achieve his
full development as a person. The communities themselves are concerned
about his welfare. And just as he receives from them, he is obliged to
contribute to
them. So, the definition that we originally agreed on in the Committee but
which is not part of the Article is that social justice is a condition of the
structures and institutions of society which reflect on the one hand the
inherent dignity and inalienable rights of the person, and the obligation of
the
community to use the material wealth and political power at its disposal for
the welfare of all its members, especially the poor and the weak; and on the
other hand, the individuals obligation to the community and to the welfare
of all its members.
As we can see, there is a dynamic tension throughout this Article on Social
Justice the individual and the community, and their mutual obligation to
each
other. We must admit that there is a definite bias for the poor and the weak;
but as the Gentleman himself mentioned, those who have less in life must
have
more in law.
Finally, why the primacy of social justice? Because. we want to tell the State
that the emphasis should not be simply on economic growth but basically, to
create egalitarian conditions, to create social justice. This is what will provide
lasting peace that could be the condition or the atmosphere within which
all other projects prosper.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just add an idea. In case there is
some apprehension about what this means, Section 1, lines 10 to 14,
provides that the
State will directly redistribute power in the sense that it takes a position from
one person and gives it to another. I think this should be read in the
context of Congress in the clause: Congress shall give the highest priority.
We must assume that Congress does it in terms of measures that reduce
social, economic and political inequities, promote structures, redistribute
wealth and power. So, it is in that context that this should be read.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner de Castro is the next registered interpellator.
MS. NIEVA: Excuse me, Madam President. I think Commissioner Tadeo would
like to give some reactions to the questions for clarification that were raised
by
MR. TADEO: Madam President, ibig ko lamang sagutin ang mga paglilinaw ni
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo may proceed.
MR. TADEO: Natutuwa naman ako sa mga tanong dahil kinakailangan
talagang linawin ang mapanlikhang kaisipan ng magbubukid. Hindi kami
technocrat bagamat
nagpapasalamat kami kay Commissioner Regalado na, sa kauna-unahang
pagkakataon, ang magbubukid ay tinatawag niyang technocrats. Ngunit ito
ay buhat
lamang sa mapanlikhang kaisipan ng magbubukid. Iisa-isahin ko ang mga
katanungan ni Commissioner Regalado at sasagutin ko nang isa-isa.
Sinasabi niyang ipinagbabawal daw namin ang leasehold; hindi ito totoo. Ang
tenurial status ay ganito; mayroong share tenant na 50-50, 60-40, 55-45, or
70-30 ang sharing. Ang isa naman ay ang leasehold na mayroong fixed
rental; hindi rin ito ipinagbabawal. Ang isa rin ay iyong owner-cultivator o
owner-operator na hindi rin ipinagbabawal. Ang ibig lang sabihin ay, mula sa
isang yugto ng reporma sa lupa leasehold tayo ay patungo na sa ganap
na
pagmamay-ari. Kayat isang yugto lamang ang leasehold.
Sa pangalawang katanungan ng Ginoo ay medyo hindi kami nagkaunawaan.
Ipinaaalam ko kay Commissioner Regalado na hindi namin inilagay ang
agricultural
worker sa kadahilanang kasama rito ang piggery, poultry at livestock
workers. Ang inilagay namin dito ay farm worker kaya hindi kasama ang
piggery, poultry
at livestock workers.
Ang pangalawang katanungan ay tungkol sa coverage. Ang coverage nito ay
all agricultural lands all arable lands, public and private. Ang ibig sabihin
ay
kasama ang coconut, sugar, sorghum na binanggit ng Ginoo kangina
vegetable, pineapple at banana plantation. Ang ibig pa ring sabihin ng arable
agricultural land ay cultivated area at iba pang mga lupaing maaaring
sabihing nababagay sa agrikultura.
Ano ang ibig sabihin ng owner-cultivators? Itinatanong ninyo kung ang ibig
sabihin nito ay personal cultivation. Ang ibig sabihin dito ng retention limits
ay ang owner-cultivators. Ang ibig sabihin ng owner-cultivators ay ang

panginoon ng lupa ay gumagawa rin sa bukid at lahat ng gawain sa bukid ay
kanyang
pinamamahalaan: wala siyang regular na farm workers. Siya ay namamahala
sa land preparation, transplanting, care of crops hanggang sa pag-aani
bagamat wala
siyang regular na farm workers.
Tungkol naman sa fair and progressive compensation, maganda ang
katanungan ng Ginoo dahil ito ay nabibilang sa mga matitinding usapin. Ang
ibig sabihin ng
fair and progressive compensation ay ganito: Kapag ang lupa mo ay
malawak big landholding ang halaga nito ay dapat maging mas mababa
kaysa maliit na
lupa. Habang lumiliit ang lupa, lumalaki ang halaga ng lupa; subalit habang
lumalaki ang lupaing sinasakop, lumiliit ang halaga ng lupa ngunit hindi sa
kapinsalaan ng land reform beneficiaries. Linawin natin ngayon ang just
compensation; ito ay mahalaga kaya nagpapasalamat ako sa katanungan.
Ano ang ibig
sabihin ng just compensation sa jurisprudence? Sinasabi nating ito ay ang
fair market value. Under Republic Act 3844 on the right of preemption and
right
of redemption, sinasabi po na ang just compensation ay ang reasonable
capacity of the farmer to pay, ang kakayahan ng magbubukid na bayaran
ang lupa. Ang
gagamitin nating kahulugan ng just compensation ay hindi yung nasa
jurisprudence kundi ang RA 3844 on the right of preemption and right of
redemption.
Tungkol naman sa Section 7, maganda po ang katanungan ng Ginoo kaya
nililinaw ko. Ano ba ang other natural resources? In principle, the term land
should
include all forms of natural resources, including mineral and forest resources.
Tama ang katanungan ng Ginoo. Hindi po maaaring manahin ang mina sa
ilalim
ng agrarian reform dahil ito ay pag-aari ng State ayon sa regalian doctrine.
Ang ibig po naming sabihin ay hindi dapat maabala ang ecological balance
ng
lupa; ang minahan ay maaaring kunan ng mina, huwag lamang iiwanang
nakatiwangwang ang lupang maaaring pang-agrikultura. Napakarami ng
landless agricultural
workers ngayon. Ano ang mangyayari sa landless agricultural workers sa
tunay na agrarian reform? Narito ang tinatawag na statistics sa kasalukuyan:
Ang
bilang ng landless agricultural workers noong 1971 ay 800,000. Ayon sa
National Census and Statistics Office, noong 1984, ang bilang na ito ay
umabot na sa
1.9 million. Sinasabi ng mga nananaliksik na mayroon nang tatlo hanggang
apat na milyong landless agricultural workers. Kaya isinama natin ang
Section 7
upang ang mga landless ay madala natin dito.
Noong magkaroon ng public hearing, sinabi ni Commissioner Bernas na
mayroon nang 605,000 kaingineros na pumapanot ng ating bundok.
Magiging isang malawak
na disyerto ang Pilipinas. Saan natin ngayon dadalhin ang mga kaingineros
na ito? Dito sa sinasabi nating public domain sa Section 7.
Tungkol naman sa communal fishing, ang halimbawa nito ay ang Laguna
Lake na binanggit ng aking kababayang Commissioner Natividad. Sa Laguna
Lake, iilan
lamang ang nagmamay-ari ng fish pens at nakikinabang sa biyayang bigay
ng Panginoon sa atin. Dapat ay magkaroon din ng karapatan sa direct and
communal use
ang mga small fishermen. Iyan ang ibig sabihin dito.
Sa Section 9, ang ibig sabihin ay hindi tayo dapat tumigil sa pagpapaunlad
ng ating agrikultura bilang isang agricultural country. Ang kailangan ay ang
tinatawag na integrated o pinag-isang pagpapaunlad ng agrikultura
kapanabay ng pagpapaunlad ng industriya gaya ng coconut na isang tree of
life. Huwag
tayong titigil sa pagiging hilaw na sangkap lamang nito; kailangan natin
itong gawing gatas sapagkat mayroon itong 20 hanggang 21 porsiyentong
protina na
maaaring tumugon sa malnourishment ng bansa. Ang ibig sabihin nito ay
hindi dapat tayong tumigil sa raw materials lamang; dapat ay magkaroon ng
high value
added.
Tumungo tayo sa Section 12 ukol sa urban comprehensive agrarian reform
program. Ayon sa RA 1199, sa 300 square meters na lupa ng magbubukid na
ibinigay
noong panahon ni Magsaysay ay maaaring maglagay ng bahay upang
maalagaan niyang mabuti ang bukid. Hindi niya kinukuha ang residential lot
na pag-aari ng
panginoong may lupa. Sa isang ektaryang lupa ay magkakaroon lamang siya
ng 300 square meters na home lot. Makakatulong naman ang pagkakaroon
ng tirahan
doon; hindi naman ito makapipinsala sapagkat araw-araw ay maaalagaan ng
magbubukid ang lupa. Kung ang bukid naman ay walang home lot at hindi
naman
pumupunta ang magbubukid absentee tenant babagsak pa ang

produksyon. Kaya hindi po ito makapipinsala.
MR. VILLACORTA: I would like to briefly react to the statement of
Commissioner Regalado with respect to the primary consideration given
social justice.
He mentioned the Calalang vs. Williams case, and if I may quote from that
case, social justice will be promoted through the exercise of power
underlying
the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus
populi est suprema lex. So, I think that even in law and in this particular
judicial decision the primacy of social justice as a desideratum of
governments was reiterated.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, gusto ko ring sagutin ang sinabi ni
Commissioner Regalado na hihintayin pa ang Lunes upang pag-usapan ang
ibig sabihin ng
optimum working conditions especially in relation to maternal functions.
Sa aking palagay, ito ay masasagot na natin at hindi na kailangang hintayin
pa ang weekend upang ipaliwanag kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng working
conditions na mahalaga para sa kababaihan.
Ang ibig sabihin ng optimum working conditions ay ang mga kundisyon sa
paggawa kung saan hindi makararanas ang kababaihan ng anumang harmful
o mapanganib
na kundisyon. Ang working condition ay kailangang maging healthful at safe.
Halimbawa, kung ang isang buntis na manggagawa ay ma-expose sa
maraming
hazardous elements sa loob ng isang pagawaan, siguradong masama ang
epekto nito sa kanyang embryo, ang kanyang magiging anak. Kaya
kailangang ang
conditions of work ng isang nagdadalangtao ay maging safe and healthful.
These would refer to the physical, chemical, biological and other conditions
in
the work environment.
Isa pang optimum condition na kailangang healthful para sa kababaihan ay
ang hours of work, lalo na iyong scheduling. Kapag ang isang buntis ay
pinagtrabaho sa gabi, masisira ang kanyang biological rhythm. Mahihirapan
siyang mag-adjust dahil mayroon na siyang dinadala na kailangang
protektahan.
Kaya kailangang bigyan ang kababaihan ng special care. Ang isa pang
kundisyon sa loob ng pagawaan na maaaring magbigay ng kabuwisitan ay
ang social at
psychological environment. Maraming mga tao ang walang appreciation sa
pangangailangan ng mga nagdadalangtao.
Ano ang maternal functions? Ito ay may reference sa kababaihan dahil sila
lang ang nagbubuntis at naghihirap sa pagdadala ng siyam na buwan sa
sanggol sa
kanilang sinapupunan. Kaya kailangang bigyan ng lipunan ng special care
ang kababaihan dahil kaiba ang kanilang function kaysa sa lalaki. Sa palagay
ko,
ito ang simpleng paliwanag na hindi technocratic.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I comment on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment from the members of the
Committee?
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, I am a member of the Committee except
that I chose to be on this side.
In the interest of having debates that would generate more light than heat so
that our weekend will not be spoiled, let me share with you two quotations.
On the first quotation, a philosopher gives us his answer on the question:
What is justice?
No other question has been discussed so passionately; no other question has
caused so much precious blood and so many bitter tears to be shed; no other
question has been the object of so much intensive thinking of the most
illustrious thinkers from Plato to Kant; and yet this question is today as
unanswered as it ever was. It seems that it is one of those questions that
man cannot find a definitive answer for, but can only try to improve the
question.
I think we have done that in terms of the questions that have emerged. But
let me read the second:
A society in which the questionings of justice ceased to be a constant prod
and perplexity would not be humane in any sense that matters.

MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I say something on this?
I am wondering whether the Committee will also take into account the
employment of minors. Right now, we have laws protecting female workers
and minors.
But I notice that under the present labor laws, there are provisions about
apprentices, handicapped workers and minors. Perhaps the Committee may
take into
account that the State shall also provide protection for minors because the
present protection to minors is only a statutory precept which could be
amended. And yet from what I understand and I think Commissioner Ople
will bear me out on this about 28 percent of the labor group are minors.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de Castro, who has
been standing there for the last hour, be recognized.
I like the Article on Social Justice because, as President Magsaysay said, we
should give more laws to the poor. Bibigyan mo, aniya, ng pangdamit ang
isang
tao, ang mahirap, sa kanyang likod at nang siya naman ay mabuhay nang
husto. I also like the peroration in Tagalog of Commissioner Tadeo yesterday:
Kaming
mga dukha ay dapat bigyan ng nararapat ng ating gobyerno. I like it
because I am also a dukha.
My father was a rig driver; my mother was a vegetable vendor in the market.
We lived in a one-room house, with a rotten roof and almost no sidings,
squatting on the lot of a cousin.
I also like to see that while we are helping the poor, I hope that they are also
helping themselves. That is the reason I objected to the illiterates
voting because they refuse to receive adult education and learn how to write,
and instead go drinking at night, spending what they earned the day before.
I read the Article last night I must confess I read it no less than three times
and I have my comments here. I am glad that I found a brilliant man, a
Commissioner, who is also in the same category as I am, failing to
understand the many phrases. Sa amin kung tawagin ito ay naglulubid ng
buhangin. I am
glad that I am not alone. I was about to stand and say the same thing as
Commissioner Regalado did. But they may say that I am not even a seventh
grade
graduate not to understand these things. I am glad that a distinguished legal
mind in our Commission finds himself in the same position as I am. That is
why I am saying this. Of the many times I read this Article, I thought it
contains socialistic, if not communistic, ideas. Pardon me if I am wrong.
Of the few words I understand on page 2, Section 4, line 6, does the word
strike include a wildcat strike? I had to see Commissioner Ople and ask him
what a wildcat strike is. According to him, it is a strike without notice. So, will
any member of the Committee answer my question if it includes a wildcat
strike?
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I will not answer the second question but
the first one. Being a professor of political science, I think I know something
about communism. I do not know what the honorable Commissioner means
by communism as reflected in Section 2. If he will recall, Section 6, Article 11
of
the 1973 Constitution is almost identical to our Section 2.
MR. DE CASTRO: With a twist.
MR. VILLACORTA: Is the Gentleman saying that the 1973 Constitution has
elements of communism . . .
MR. DE CASTRO: This is with a twist. This is not exactly identical to the 1973
Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman please allow Commissioner Villacorta to
finish his reaction to his question?
MR. DE CASTRO: I am sorry, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: If I may read Section 2:
. . . the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of
property and its fruits . . .
This is almost identical to Section 6, Article II of the 1973 Constitution. In
fact, the 1973 Constitution is even stronger because it says, equitably
diffuse property ownership and profits which we do not have here. That is
closer to socialism, in fact. If the Gentleman is referring to the second part
of Section 2 which says, promote the establishment of independent and
self-reliant socio-political and economic structures, I do not see anything
communistic. Independent simply means self-reliant. If we are not for
mendicancy and charity, we are for teaching the poor to fish but not giving
them
fish. If the Chair will allow me, I will give an enumeration of the salient
sections of this Article that provide assistance to the poor, being far behind
the starting line in comparison to the elite and the more privileged sectors.
We are simply providing aid, not perpetual assistance and patronage to the
poor.
For example, Section 4 guarantees the right of workers to self-organization,
again a right guaranteed in the previous Constitutions; Section 5 gives the
opportunity for tillers of the soil to own the land that they till; Section 6
provides participation of farmers and farm workers in the planning and
management of agrarian reform programs; Section 8 grants fishermens right
to communal use of marine and fishing resources; Section 10 provides for
ownership and use of urban land for the common good; Section 17 protects
the welfare of women and affords them ample opportunities to serve the
country;
Section 18 is on the development of indigenous communities; and lastly,
Sections 19 and 20 provide for the independent role and effective and
reasonable
participation of peoples organizations at all levels of decision-making, and
insure adequate consultation mechanisms for said participation.
These are the salient features of the Article on Social Justice. Pardon my
ignorance and probably density but I do not see anything communistic here.
I am not a professor of political law; I may not see what the Gentleman sees
but he may not see what I see. Last night as I was reading this Article, my
daughter from Switzerland who happens to be vacationing with me, a
diplomate in international law and foreign relations and has studied the
government of
Russia and the governments of the international community, said: Ano iyan,
Papa? Sabi ko: Binabasa ko ito pero hindi ko maintindihan. Tingnan ko
nga,
sabi niya. Then she said: Papa, mayroon naman yatang communism iyan. I
did not see what she saw, and I cannot see what the Gentleman sees, and
perhaps he
does not see what I see. I will go to my question. On line 6, page 2, does the
word strike include a wildcat strike?
MR. MONSOD: May we answer that?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: No, it would not include a wildcat strike.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then why not say so?

The air controllers of the Manila International Airport just staged a wildcat
strike and as a result, hundreds of international passengers slept on the
cement floor.
MR. MONSOD: That is why earlier, when this question was raised by
Commissioner Foz, we said that we would be willing to entertain
amendments that would
clarify this. One of the phrases that could be entertained is the phrase: In
accordance with law, among several alternatives.
Then the Committee prefers that the members of the Commission see it.
Kung makakalusot ay lusot naman. Mabuti at nakita naman. I am not asking
for honesty
but let us be frank. When we put up a paper before this Commission, let us
not allow the other Members to be looking for what it really means. I become
suspicious of any paper being placed on my table now. On page 2, Section 6,
line 26, the term farm workers is mentioned. Ang sabi ni Ginoong Tadeo, ito
ay ang mga katulong sa paggawa sa farms mga mag-aani. Are they part of
the farm workers to participate in planning, organizing and managing the
program?
MR. TADEO: Magandang muli ang katanungan ni Commissioner de Castro,
pero bago ko sagutin iyan, gusto ko lang pong banggitin ang nakasulat sa
Acts of the
Apostles 2:44-45.
MR. DE CASTRO: Saan po ito?
MR. TADEO: Mayroong salita roon sa Chapter 2 ng Mga Gawa ng Mga Apostol
sa Bibliya.
MR. DE CASTRO: Hindi po ako nagbabasa ng Bibliya.
MR. TADEO: Ito po ang sinasabi sa Acts of the Apostles 2:44-45:
Ang pag-aari ay para sa kalahatan at itoy ibibigay, ipamamahagi batay sa
pangangailangan ng bawat isa.
Ngayon po, sinasabi rin sa Mateo 23:23, Ang pinakamahalagay ang
katarungan. Iyon ang pinakamahalaga sa lahat. At itoy katarungang
dinadala namin sa
inyo. Maganda po ang katanungan ng Ginoo ngayon. Hindi kasama rito ang
mga farm workers sa hasyenda, at iyong mga nanggagapasan, hindi rin po

kasama.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, temporary farm workers are not included here?
MR. TADEO: Iyon lang mga nasa plantasyon, korporasyon, at pasture leases
or concessions.
MR. DE CASTRO: Are temporary farm workers not considered farm workers?
MR. TADEO: Mayroon po kasing ganitong mga farm workers; talaga pong
medyo complicated iyan. Mayroon po tayong mga regular at seasonal
workers. Mayroon
din po tayong sakada. Ang ibig po nating sabihin, ang mga regular at
seasonal workers ay kasama rin sa sinasabi nating mayroong cooperative
right.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mabuti sanay maipaliwanag natin sapagkat nalilito ako.
Iyong mga nanggagapasan, nag-aani at naglalagay ng fertilizer ay mga
temporary,
hindi ba sila kasama rito?
MR. TADEO: Hindi po sila kasama. Tama po. Maganda pong katanungan.
MR. DE CASTRO: Section 11, page 3 says: Urban poor dwellers shall not be
evicted nor their dwellings demolished without due process of law. There is
no
question that this refers to squatters. Is that right?
MR. DE CASTRO: Are we constitutionalizing squatters?
MR. MONSOD: No, actually if we read the whole page, it says without due
process of law.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: I think the intent of the provision is to avoid the abuses of the
past where the military and police just go in, bulldoze the dwellings and
beat the people up. We are not making a judgment as to title to the property.
We are just establishing a principle that due process must be observed.
MR. DE CASTRO: That is a general statement against the army and the
police, bulldozing houses and beating them up. The Gentleman is accusing
them without
due process.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we just mentioned that there were
instances like those but we were not saying that the military and the police
do these
everytime. There were instances like those, and we cannot deny that these
happened in the past because of the policy of the State then under Mr.
Marcos.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am only after the accusation without due process. Lately,
when some people learned that that portion in the Pasig area was a prized
property of Mr. Marcos, everybody went there and put their stakes. The
police went there, and without going to court, they drove away those who
were
already building their shanties. This is of public knowledge. Is this a violation
of this portion which is being drafted?
MR. MONSOD: Under this provision, if the processes were not observed, that
would be a violation. This does not say, however, that they cannot be
evicted.
It just says that due process must be observed.
MR. DE CASTRO: Now, to my example when these people learned that the
property belonged to the Marcoses, they immediately went there and staked
their
claims. And so, the police and the army, without due process, went there and
drove them away.
Is this now a violation of this Constitution?
MR. MONSOD: It would be, if they did not observe due process.
I hope I can still learn the many lubid ng buhangin in the Article on Social
Justice.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you very much.
May we just make a request. Since the body will be submitting proposed
amendments and since we are a rather large committee of 17 members who
are very
democratic in our consultations, it might take us a little more time than the
other committees to be able to come to an agreement on some of the
proposed
amendments. So, may we request that we receive copies of the proposed

amendments ahead of time so that we will have time to meet on these and
we will not
waste time trying to get a consensus on whether we will adopt or reject the
amendments as proposed. We would be very grateful for that.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for the last interpellator this morning, I ask that
Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
The Declaration of Principles in the 1935 Constitution reads:
SECTION 5. The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and
economic security of all the people should be the concern of the State.
This was rewritten in the 1973 Constitution this way:
The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and
security of all the people.
The Bill of Rights provides as its first section due process and equal
protection of the law; Section 2 speaks on expropriation of private property. I
notice in this Article on Social Justice the many duties of the State because
practically every section begins with the phrase The State shall. We are
imposing many duties on the State. Likewise, we are granting additional
rights. Is it the intention of the Committee to grant more rights in addition to
those mentioned in the Bill of Rights?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. Those mentioned in this Article on Social Justice cover the
social and economic rights of the citizens social, economic and cultural
rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights more specifically refers to the political
rights of the citizens, as well as their civil rights.
MR. PADILLA: No. The Bill of Rights states the fundamental, inalienable, Godgiven rights of the people. These are the basic restraints, we might say, or
limitations on the exercise of governmental power for the benefit of the
people. But the provisions of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions speak of all
the
people. Mention was made of salus populi est suprema lex. Salus populi
means the welfare of the people, not any particular sector of the people. And
in the
exercise of the police power, the State promotes the general welfare, the
common good and the interest of all the people. If we grant some
exceptional
rights to some sectors or classes of people, even in favor of labor workers,
farmers, farm workers but in contravention of the rights of the other sectors
of society, we are not promoting the common welfare of all the people.
For example, Section 1 says: . . . redistribute wealth and power. Does this
mean that private property can also be redistributed, or does it refer to
property belonging to the State or the public domain and other lands that are
not privately owned properties, which are covered by the law on land
registration, known as the Torrens system? Can registered private property
be redistributed also under this provision? That is one basic question that
should be clarified. When the Committee proposes to redistribute power, I
suppose that is covered by our electoral system this refers to the election
of
the President, Vice-President, Senators, Congressmen, the local officials and
others because sovereignty resides in the people. I cannot understand
redistribution of political power unless it is through periodic elections under a
representative government. The question is on the redistribution of
wealth I understand it means material wealth. If they are the natural
resources of the country, they should be available to all with equal
opportunity;
there should be no discrimination; there should be no injustice. But does the
statement redistribute wealth for the common good mean that one who
has
private property according to Commissioner Bengzon in a brief remark to
me, one has, for example, a farmland of only 20 hectares or so, planted with
calamansi, and he also has a small mill to produce calamansi juice, not only
for local consumption but also for possible export should have his business
expanded, or should such kind of property be redistributed? That is a
question I am propounding to the Committee because it is a basic principle.
MR. MONSOD: Earlier we said that the intent of the sentence beginning with
line 9 of Section 1, which says: To this end, Congress shall give the highest
priority, is that there should be measures that will promote those items
enumerated therein, such as the reduction of social, economic and political
inequities, the promotion of structures and processes and the redistribution
of wealth and power. With regard to the provisions on labor, for example,
giving labor certain rights to bargaining and negotiation, giving workers the
right to strike in accordance with the law, as well as participation in
decisions that affect their rights and benefits, these in effect will redistribute
some of the profits or revenues of the firm. But this should at the same
time protect the right of business enterprises to realize their growth
potentials and reasonable returns so that, in effect, this redistribution will
not,
in any way, run the business enterprise to the ground.
The agrarian natural resources reform program would also be a form of

redistribution, but should this be subject to retention limits which would
cover
economic units, and should this be subject to a fair and progressive system
of compensation?
With regard to the redistribution of power, we refer to measures that see to it
that the electoral process, for example, works in such a way that it is
enforced so that people truly have access to elective offices, regardless of
whether they are rich or poor. The measures that were approved yesterday
and
which opened up the system so that minority parties and sectoral groups can
have access to legislative seats are measures that would also result in
redistribution of power. As we have mentioned earlier, this does not mandate
anybody to say: Tomorrow, take away your position in government and give
it
to somebody else, or We will take away your land and give it to Joe or Juan
de la Cruz on the other side. There are certain processes that must be
honored an respected and which also require justice.
BISHOP BACANI: May I also respond to an earlier question of Commissioner
Padilla on whether we a adding more rights in this proposed Article. I think
the
distinction that was given during the presentation of the provisions on the
Bill of Rights by Commissioner Bernas is very apropos here. He spoke of
self-executing right which belong properly to the Bill of Rights, and then he
spoke of a new body of rights which are more of claims and that these have
come about largely through the works of social philosophers and then the
teaching of the Popes. They focus on the common good and hence it is not
as easy
to pinpoint precisely these rights nor the situs of the rights. And yet, they
exist in relation to the common good.
So that while we speak here of contraventions are these rights
contraventions of other rights on close analysis, one finds out that they
are not
contravention of the rights of anybody else, but the point of reconciliation
with those rights must be discovered. This is what we are trying to do here.
We are not saying that it is always easy to find out the point of reconciliation
of these rights with other rights; and yet that exists. And so these
claims are asserted and it is for lawmakers to determine more precisely just
where the point of reconciliation lies or must lie.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, just one more point. Commissioner Padilla
mentioned earlier about costs in respect to this program. I think the
Committee took
pains to mention, for example, on line 20 of page 3 where we talk about

housing. If the Gentleman will notice, we put in the words at affordable
cost,
and on line 9 of page 4 on social services, we again used the same phrase.
The message we are putting here is that there should not be free goods. We
are
saying that those who benefit should pay for these benefits, but the poor
sometimes cannot afford the real cost of the benefit and, therefore, in those
cases provision must be made so that they are given to them at affordable
cost.
MR. PADILLA: There are so many explanations on subsequent paragraphs of
the committee draft. My only question was on the phrase redistribute
wealth and
power. For example, the Bill of Rights provides the rights and freedoms of
the people, not only of employees or workers, but of all the people. The Bill
of Rights provides the right to form associations, unions, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. That is the fundamental
right for self-organization. The committee report grants the additional rights
to workers, not only to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, peaceful and concerted activities for their own protection,
welfare and mutual aid, including the right to strike. It seems that with the
right to strike, especially by employees of the government, we are adding
more rights than what are provided in the Bill of Rights.
With regard to material wealth or property which may either be public or
private, our Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws. Section 2 of the Bill of Rights provides that
private property shall not be taken except by competent authority for public
use and upon payment of just compensation. These are the first two sections
in
the Bill of Rights. They are the fundamental principles of good government.
Section 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a copy of which I
received this morning, says:
Everyone has the right to own property alone, as well as in association with
others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
This Universal Declaration of Human Rights is essentially the same as our
provision in the Bill of Rights. When I learned that the word wealth includes
private property, although it is followed by the phrase for the common
good which expresses common welfare or the promotion of social justice for
all the
people, the alarm may be sounded against the so-called urban land reform
issued by President Marcos during martial law as P.D. No. 1517 which he
himself
did not implement except in the so-called depressed urban areas. The
committee report also mentions Urban Land Reform, on page 3, line 19.
Does this mean
that the Committee is endorsing P.D. No. 1517 and that a tenant will have
the right to acquire the premises he has occupied for, say, ten years as a
tenant? And is the supposed right of the tenant compulsory as against the
lessors, a supposed compulsory obligation on the part of the owner? It
seems
that the Committee, in including Urban Land Reform, is not only
recognizing and adopting the very extensive but objectionable decree of the
former
regime, but it may constitutionalize said PD on urban land reform. Said PD
was issued not for the common good or the common welfare, but to appease
or
flatter the group of urban tenants as a particular sector of our society. Is that
the intention?
BISHOP BACANI: Commissioner Padilla, please understand that the provisions
in the Article on Social Justice are not in contradiction with the other
sections of the Constitution, but they are meant to be complementary.
Hence, when we speak here of redistributing wealth, this is with due respect
for the
rights that are already enshrined in the Bill of Rights that this will not be
without due process of law. The Gentleman .seems to see these rights not as
explications or complements of what are said in the Bill of Rights, but as
contradictions which are not intended to be.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, may I try to respond. I would also like to give
the rationale. I think what Commissioner Bacani said was a very good
answer.
With regard to the phrase redistribute wealth and power, I think the
rationale for this is that, in our society when we have unlimited access to
economic
wealth and economic power, we are effectively cutting off a large majority of
the people from enjoying those same rights which normally are enjoyed by a
few. Those who amass both wealth and power have undue advantage over
those resources and are effectively cutting off a majority from the enjoyment
of
these.
However, I do not see in this draft Article any kind of undue limitation on
private property. In fact, Congress is supposed to promote and provide those
measures which, under certain conditions and with due process, are always
for the common good. Can we then limit excessive property regarding land,
for
example, if it is excessive, but with due process always and for the common
good?
So, what I am trying to say is that basically the rights which we say could be
enjoyed by all are illusory if the protection over unlimited access to both
wealth and power is not, in a sense, checked and controlled.
MR. PADILLA: We have seen former President Marcos or some of his allies in
government distributing land certificates, but oftentimes he was distributing
the lands of private owners. So, it is very easy to distribute what is not yours.
But the fundamental Latin maxim is nemo dat quad non habet. Justice Laurel
in Lying to explain social justice in that case of Calalang vs. Williams also
had difficulty in defining social justice. But he stated, as quoted by
Commissioner Villacorta, salus populi est suprema lex. And it was very
difficult
to make a positive definition, for what appears in the Calalang decision is like
a negative definition, that social justice is not anarchy; it is not
despotism; it must be the equilibrium of all forces. I cannot quote exactly.
Maybe Commissioner Nolledo who has his book on the Constitution can
quote
that.
But Justice Laurel was stressing the equitable equilibrium of all political,
economic and social forces, so as to attain the objective of common welfare,
the common good, the welfare of all the people. And as stated in the
Constitution, it says all the people.
Madam President, it is not safe nor correct to be granting additional rights to
a few sectors in the guise of promoting the common welfare at the expense
of other sectors of society which must all be united in the common effort to
produce wealth. I have always been saying, Madam President, that the
solution
to our basic problems is for more production that will benefit not only the
capitalist in management of business and commerce and agriculture, but
also
those involved therein including the farm workers, the workers, the
distributors, wholesalers and retailers. In other words, the entire fabric of
society.
BISHOP BACANI: May I reply, Madam President?
Commissioner Padilla, the idea here is to attain the good of all those who
have less but should be enabled. What is being done here is to enable the
depressed sectors of our society, those who have been deprived precisely to
exercise their rights so that all in society would benefit. In other words, the
intention is not to harm anybody or anybodys rights, but to be able to

empower others who are not able to assert claims or who, though they may
have
rights, are not able to enforce them at present. Let us take the example of
access to fishing grounds. If there are people who claim that they have
licenses to a certain area for fishing and then they fence off the others,
people who do not have licenses may in fact be deprived of their own
livelihood.
So empowerment of these small people so that they will have access to
those lands may perhaps lend to dismantling of fishpens which may have
been legally
attached at a certain point but to the prejudice of these little fishermen. The
dismantling of these fish pens will be in accordance with social justice
because it will benefit those who are deprived while at the same time still
enable those who are now being deprived of the exercise of a fishing license
in
order to live with dignity.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I agree with Commissioner Bacani, but his
example of Laguna de Bay refers to something that is communal or that
belongs to
the people. It is not correct to limit the utilization or exploitation of water
resources to a few who are privileged and who may have, as the
Commissioner
said, licenses. There must be an equal opportunity for all the fishermen,
whether big or small, especially because these are public waters. I agree that
one, two or ten people are exploiting our communal waters, and that is
wrong. I agree with that but there must be an assurance of equality or equal
opportunity. To allow a few and deprive a great majority is social injustice;
that is moral injustice and, even in law, is legal injustice. With that
example of Commissioner Bacani, we do not seem to be in disagreement.
But when he says those who have less, should they have more? The slogan
is: Those
who have less in life should have more in law. Let us take, for example, a
millionaire who has five million pesos worth of properties, but his neighbor is
a poor laborer who wants to work but cannot even find work, and he can
hardly support his family, much less give education to his growing children.
This is
social inequality, but it does not mean that the rich man must redistribute his
assets or his properties among the less favored. It is a good Christian
virtue to share your benefits because after all, those benefits come from
Almighty God. In connection with this, Commissioner Villacorta has made
reference
to this statement of the Chinese philosopher, Confucius, which says: Do not
give him (that means his neighbor) fish, but teach him how to fish. Some
handouts are not the solution; he must learn a trade and work for his living.
If we have no social discrimination, and we extend equal opportunity to all

and there is justice in the administration and dispensation of equal rights,
then we may have the correct solution to our many nagging problems,
particularly our economic bankruptcy.
BISHOP BACANI: Would Commissioner Padilla be excluding, for example, the
redistribution of land with due compensation from among the just acts that
can be
done by society or by the State? Would the Gentleman be excluding that as a
possibility within the purview of justice?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, since 1935, it has already been provided that
big landed estates can be divided to small lots and distributed among
deserving
Filipinos. Now, many decisions have justified that provision because there is
no reason for a family especially during the Spanish regime to receive a
grant of public land which extends to as far as our eyes can see, and covers
not only some towns but sometimes some municipalities. Let us consider
also
the case of an enterprising agro-industrialist who owns some hectares where
he plants, for example, palm trees to produce palm oil needed in the
manufacture of soap and other cosmetics which we used to import,
especially from Malaysia. Then there is the case of a Filipino firm that has
planted palm
trees and has built a mill to produce palm oil. And the example can apply to
coconut or any other product. In these cases the owner/corporation owns
1,024
hectares which was the limit prescribed under the 1935 Constitution, and
employs many technicians and workers who are usually prosperous or
enjoying the
comforts of life with dignity. The question is, would such a farm devoted to
productive agriculture and transformed to industrial products necessary for
our economy be subject to redistribution?
MR. TADEO: Madam President, ang mga katanungan po ninyo kangina
tungkol sa mga lupain at sa just distribution naming tinatawag ay hindi
naman nag-aalis
ng right to property. Ang ibig po kasing sabihin ng right to property rito sa
Universal Declaration of Human Rights ay ito: kapag ang pag-aari moy hindi
pumipinsala sa iyong mga kalapit. Sinasabi nating social conflict and unjust
distribution kapag ang nakapaligid sa iyong pag-aari ay ang mga
magsasakang
walang lupa at iba pang manggagawa sa bukid na walang lupa. Itoy
masasakop nitong genuine agrarian reform.
Nabanggit ng Commissioner ang mga palm and coconut trees. Ang totoo,
hindi tayo dapat magtanim ng palm trees sa Pilipinas sa kadahilanang ang
coconut natin
ay sapat na sapat na sa atin at kumukumpetensiya lamang ito sa ating
coconut oil at coconut trees. Masasakop din ito ng genuine agrarian reform.
Ang pagpapatupad ng tunay na agrarian reform ay gagawin sa isang
lehislatura kung saan mayroon itong phasing mayroong phase 1, phase 2
at phase 3. At
tungkol dito sa small landowner na inyong pinangangambahan, ang
pagpapatupad ng genuine agrarian reform sa small landowner ay sa huling
bahagi kung saan
ang industriyalisasyon ay maunlad na. Kung makikita niyang hindi na
produktibong manatili pa siya sa lupa, mas magaling pang lumipat na siya sa
industriya.
Tungkol naman sa palm trees na sinasabing bahagi rin ng ating agricultural
lands, ang ibig pong sabihin, magsisimula riyan sa farm workers union.
Dapat
magkaroon sila sa organization ng tinatawag na joint consultation dahil
mayroong social injustice. Dapat magkaroon sila, halimbawa, ng profit
sharing. Ang
pagpapatupad ng genuine agrarian reform ay hindi naman biglaan; ito ay
mayroong mga phasing.
Ang dahilan ng kahirapan natin sa Pilipinas ngayon ay ang pagtitipon-tipon
ng vast tracts of land sa kamay ng iilan. Lupa ang nagbibigay ng buhay sa
magbubukid at sa iba pang manggagawa sa bukid. Kapag inalis sa kanila ang
lupa, parang inalisan na rin sila ng buhay. Kaya kinakailangan talagang
magkaroon
ng tinatawag na just distribution. Ang puntong ginagamit natin ay ang sinabi
sa Chapter 2 ng Acts of the Apostles na binanggit kangina: Ipamahagi ang
lupa;
at ang right to property, batay sa pangangailangan ng bawat isa. Kung
lumalampas na sa pangangailangan ng isa at pumipinsala na sa iba, ang
karapatan niya
sa lupa ay nawawala. Ngunit hindi siya inaalisan, Madam President, ng right
to property. Ang tinatawag nating retention limit ay makatarungan pa rin.
Ano
ba ang pag-aari na kayang bumuhay ng isang pamilya? Kaya makikita ninyo
rito ang pagiging makatarungan nitong napalagay ditong genuine agrarian
reform.
MR. PADILLA: May I just give one last remark because I do not wish to
continue my interpellation much longer. If the holding of property can be
injurious
to the rights of others, that is the limitation already recognized in the Civil
Code on jus abutendi. Article 431 provides:
The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure
the rights of a third person.
However, the old Roman principle, as remarked by Commissioner Regalado,
has jus utendi, fruendi, disponendi, possidendi and also abutendi. The
Christian
principle has already been adopted and the owner has no right to abuse
because the enjoyment of his property should not injure the rights of others.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I just have one minute?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I am just trying to follow up Commissioner Padillas
concerns which are for balanced social order without really lessening or
underestimating the need to reduce inequalities and to move towards
preferential options for the poor, but to focus also on the need to improve
individual
capacities for productivity. This is why I underscored earlier the need for
cooperatives that would increase and provide better incomes for producers
and
better buying powers for consumers. What we should really focus on is the
need to improve individual capabilities and productivity and to improve
access to
opportunity by strengthening capabilities through education and information
so that the individual can compete. This would, therefore, lead to an
equilibrium or what is called a better, a more balanced social order. I think
that is what Commissioner Padilla would want to underscore in the
amendments.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized for two short
announcements.
CONSIDERATION OF

(Recognizing the invaluable support
and contribution of the PSSC)
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I just would like to get these two proposed
resolutions out of the way. May I inform the body that there were two big
organizations which helped the Commission in the public hearings and in this
connection we have Proposed Resolution Nos. 535 and 532 to be presented
to the
body.
Proposed Resolution No. 535 is in recognition by the Constitutional
Commission of the invaluable support and contribution of the Philippine
Social Science
Council in the public consultations and for providing resource materials for
the drafting of the new Constitution. This was sponsored by Commissioners
Bennagen, Villacorta and Garcia.
Madam President, I move that we consider Proposed Resolution No. 535.
motion is approved.
permission of the body, the Secretary- General will read only the title of the
text thereof.
(The following is the whole text of the proposed resolution.)

Whereas, the Constitutional Commission called for all sectors of society to
help and join hands in the historic task of drafting a new constitution
reflective of the genuine needs and aspirations of the people;
Whereas, the Philippine Social Science Council, in response to this call,
offered its services to the Members of the Constitutional Commission;
Whereas, despite financial and time constraints, the Philippine Social Science
Council actively participated in these public consultations by providing
facilitators in various parts of the region where public hearings took place;
Whereas, the Philippine Social Science Council even offered their building
facilities where some of the public hearings were held;
Whereas, the Philippine Social Science Council also provided relevant and
useful resource materials needed in the drafting of our new constitution:
Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Constitutional Commission, To give due recognition to the
invaluable support and contribution of the Philippine Social Science Council
in
the public consultations and for their full cooperation by providing relevant
and useful resource materials for the drafting of the new constitution.
Resolved, further, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the
Philippine Social Science Council.
(Recognizing the invaluable support
and contribution of the PSSC)
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we approve Proposed
Resolution No. 535.
motion is approved.
Proposed Resolution No. 535 is approved.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO 532
(Expressing the profound appreciation
of the Con-Com to the NAMFREL)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we consider Proposed Resolution No. 532.
motion is approved.
text thereof.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND APPRECIATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR FREE
ELECTION (NAMFREL) FOR THE INVALUABLE
ASSISTANCE IN ORGANIZING PROVINCIAL CONSULTATIONS.
(The following is the whole text of the proposed resolution.)
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND APPRECIATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR FREE
ELECTION (NAMFREL) FOR THE INVALUABLE
ASSISTANCE IN ORGANIZING PROVINCIAL CONSULTATIONS,
Whereas, the Constitutional Commission is tasked with the drafting of a
charter truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people;
Whereas, consultations with the Filipino people whose ideals and aspirations
are sought to be reflected in the proposed charter is essential;
Whereas, owing to the limited time allowed to finish the draft of the charter,
preparations for the provincial consultations have to be made in the
shortest time possible;
Whereas, the NAMFREL, in the very limited time given to it, selflessly
extended all the assistance necessary for the success of the provincial
consultations in forty-seven places outside Metropolitan Manila;
Whereas, the NAMFREL, notwithstanding the constraints and sacrifices
personally encountered by individual members in terms of demands on their
time and
money, untiringly continued to extend their support and involvement that
carried the public consultations to its successful culmination: Now, therefore,
be
it
Resolved by the Constitutional Commission, To express its profound
appreciation to the National Movement for Free Election (NAMFREL) for the
invaluable
assistance, selfless cooperation and untiring support in organizing the public
consultations all over the country;
Resolved, further, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to all the
chapters of the NAMFREL mobilized to organize the public consultations.
(Expressing the profound appreciation
of the Con-Com to the NAMFREL)
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we approve Proposed
Resolution No. 532.
motion is approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Guingona has a short
announcement.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to inform our esteemed
colleagues that the sponsoring Committee will start working next week and
will be making
use of computers including the ones that we got from IBM.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I move that we adjourn until Monday at

nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until Monday at nine-thirty in the
morning.
It was 1:05 p.m.
Footnotes:
** With reservation on language.
R.C.C. NO. 47
Monday, August 4, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Adolfo S. Azcuna.
PRAYER
MR. AZCUNA: Remember You are Mother Mary, that You wont say You wont
because You are our Mother and You cant say You cant because You are
Gods mother,
so You will, wont You? Amen.
ROLL CALL

Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present*
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present*
Rosales
Present*
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present*
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present*
Monsod
Present*

motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
previous session.
motion is approved.
of Business.
motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Atty. Paz E. Vicada, Chairman, Socio-Cultural Task Force, PCCC,
Misamis Oriental, and fifty-six teachers with their corresponding schools,
requesting inclusion in the Constitution of the following proposals: (1) that
the educational system shall be free from political intervention; (2) that
public school teachers shall have the right to unionize as well as the right to
strike; (3) that city and barangay schools have their budget nationalized;
(4) that teachers shall have representation in the legislature and in academic
policy-making bodies; and (5) that there shall be a national commission to
investigate offenses committed by administrative officials against classroom
teachers.
Letter from Mr. Ambrosio Rilloraza of 383 Bo. Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet,
submitting for consideration of the Constitutional Commission his version of
a
new Constitution.
(Communication No. 432 Constitutional Commission of 1986).

Letter from Mr. Daniel M. Mercado, Jr., President, Filipino Life Insurance
Companies Association, Inc., suggesting that life insurance be included
among
those to be considered for limitation of ownership of 100%, if not at least
75%, Filipino.
Communication from Mr. Hermogenes Martin, Jr. of Dal-Al Amarah, P.O. Box
1727, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, suggesting, among others, (1) that
the term
of the President be six years with one reelection, (2) that the term of the
Members of the legislature be six years with two reelections, (3) that there
should be no constitutional convention during martial law, and (4) that the
voting age should be twenty-one.
Letter from Mr. Rafael A. Pabillore of Sagay, Camiguin, submitting for
consideration by the Constitutional Commission, his views and suggestions
on such
issues as schedule of elections, bloc voting, political parties, term of office,
and presidential immunity.
Letter from Mr. Ciriaco S. Nietes of Binoligan, Kidapawan, Cotabato,
submitting an outline of a new Constitution for study and deliberation by the
Letter from Ms. Nila Fragante of 9 Victoria Avenue, New Manila, Quezon City,
and one hundred seven others with their corresponding addresses, urging
the
Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the Constitution a provision
obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn child from the moment of
conception.
To the Committee on Citizenships Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Letter from Fr. Mario Cruz, 319 Elm Avenue, Apt. 3 Long Beach, California
90802, U.S.A., urging the Constitutional Commission to include in the
Constitution a provision allowing Filipinos to have dual citizenship.
Letter from Ms. Ma. Luisa D. Palillo of the Planning Service, Ministry of
Education, Culture and Sports, Manila, submitting through the honorable
Commissioner Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., her position papers, which are selfexplanatory, on religion in the Philippine schools, colleges, and universities.
Letter from Dr. Jesus V. Tamesis of 42 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City,
submitting for consideration by the Constitutional Commission, his position
paper on the
protection of the patrimony of the nation.
To the Committee on the National Economy Patrimony.
Communication from Ms. Teresita Quintos Deles of 61 Molave Street, Monte
Vista, Marikina, Metro Manila and one hundred five others, entitled:
Statement of
Common Position and Concern re: Proposed constitutional provision on the
Right to Life from the Moment of Conception.

CONSIDERATION OF
Continuation
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the consideration of Committee Report
No. 34 on Proposed Resolution No. 534, known as the Article on Social
Justice.
We are now in the period of interpellations.
motion is approved.
The honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on Social Justice
will please come forward and occupy the front table.
MR. RAMA: Next on the list of interpellators, Madam President, is
Commissioner Rigos. I ask that he be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: We will just first await the Chairman and the members of
the Committee.
Is the Committee ready?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, Madam President.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, my short comment has something to do with
Section 4, page 2, line 8, on the words and participation in policy and
decision-making. This must refer to the desire of the labor unions to have
participation in the management of the company. I just wonder whether the
Committee would consider adding a line or two on management participation

in the policy- and decision-making of the unions.
And then on line 13, it says: recognize the primacy of the right of labor to its
just share. It was intimated here last Saturday that probably this
phrase refers to profit-sharing which, we are happy to note, is being done
right now in many companies. My inquiry here is: Would the Committee also
consider adding a line or two on loss-sharing in case the company does not
make money or in case of loss? What about the share of labor in the loss of
the
company?
Thank you.
MS. NIEVA: With regard to the suggestion that management should also
participate in the policy-making of the unions . . .
REV. RIGOS: To make it balanced, not just one way.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. Is the Commissioner going to say something there? I think it
will be a very difficult situation.
MS. AQUINO: With the recognition of the Committee Chairman, may I be
clarified on that point where management will have a share in the policies of
the
union.
REV. RIGOS: No, I am just asking, Madam President. In this section, I think the
Committee is asking that the labor unions or the laborers be represented or
at least be allowed to participate in policy- and decision-making; and I
understand this to be referring to management.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, of course.
REV. RIGOS: How about the other way around? That is the question.
MS. AQUINO: That might be out of the question because the essence of
unionism is to preserve the sanctity and independence of workers when they
organize as
a collective bargaining agent. And it would not sit well with the concept of
unionism for management to be part of their policies. In other words,
management intrusion into the union activities of the workers is anathema to

the concept of trade unionism.
REV. RIGOS: That may be correct but I thought we are talking of social justice
here; at least, from a laymans point of view, we also have to allow the
other side to know what is going on in the other side.
MS. AQUINO: We understand the sentiment of the Gentleman, but then, on
the matter of unionism, we cannot allow an anachronistic situation wherein
management would sit or be part of the union policies or union
management. There may be a system of offsetting in the other aspects of
labor-management
relation, but it would go against the grain and the tide of trade unionism if
we accommodate that particular aspect that he is suggesting now.
REV. RIGOS: At any rate, I will think more about that answer.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized to interpellate.
THE PRESIPENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Bengzon will be ready later, so I ask that
Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I propound some questions to
Commissioner Tadeo?
On the recommendation of Commissioner Tadeo regarding agrarian and
natural resources reforms, Section 5 states that the State shall undertake a
genuine
agrarian reform program founded on the primacy of the rights of farmers and
farm workers. The 1973 Constitution emancipated the farmers from the
bondage of
the land which they were tilling. P.D. No. 27 of the deposed President has
been hailed as the most revolutionary and most advanced land reform
decree,
although said decree was confined to rice and corn lands. Aside from P.D. No.
27, several letters of instructions and presidential decrees were issued such
as the letter of instructions which is a listing of all landholdings; Letter of
Instructions No. 46 on pilot projects and surveys; Letter of Instructions
No. 143 providing implementing policies and guidelines; P.D. No. 316 which
prohibited the filing of cases of ejectment against tenants, etc. What is it
that the Committee wants aside from all these guarantees already provided
in P.D. No. 27 and other related letters of instructions and presidential

decrees, to make the agrarian reform program more genuine than it is now?
MR. TADEO: Makabubuting suriin muna natin ang programa para masagot
natin ito nang mahusay. Sa ilalim ng P.D. No. 27, ang nasakop lamang nito ay
rice and
corn. Ang kabuuang sukat ng palayan ay 3.5 million hectares at ang maisan
ay 3.3 million hectares. Sa kabuuan, ito ay 6.8 million hectares. Pero ang
nasakop lamang ng program ay 1,462,570 hectares, representing 13.7
percent ng cultivated area. Ang number of farmers sangayon sa Philippine
Peasant
Institute ay 7,445,500; ang nasakop lamang nito ay 1,005,124, representing
only 13 percent ng kabuuang bilang ng magbubukid. Kaya kung titingnan
natin sa
panig ng land monopoly, hindi pa nabasag nito ang land monopoly dahil
totoong napakaliit lamang ng coverage. Ngayon, ang nasakop lang ay rice
and corn,
kaya sa coverage lang ay maliit na; at sa konsepto nito, bagamat ang naging
kabayaran ay iyong compensation sa panginoong may lupa, masasabi nating
maliit
pa rin pero hindi ito inabot noong kakayahan ng magbubukid na makabayad.
Sang-ayon na rin sa record ng Ministry of Agrarian Reform, ang nakabayad
lamang na
amortizing owners sa kabuuan ng programa ay 9 percent. Ang 91 percent ay
hindi nakabayad ng amortization. Batay sa pagsusuri, ito ay bunga ng
napakaliit na
ani, napakahinang kita at pagkabaon sa kumunoy ng kahirapan ng
magbubukid.
Kapanabay ng programang P.D. No. 27 ang isang malaking pagkakamali nito.
Ang malalawak na lupain kapanabay namang ibinigay sa mga cronies at mga
multinationals. Nilabag nito ang sinabi ng ating Saligang Batas na puwedeng
mag-angkin ng 24 hectares ang isang individual at puwedeng mag-develop
ng hindi
lalagpas sa 500 hectares, at ang puwedeng angkinin ng isang korporasyon
ay 1,024. Pero, ang batas na ito na nakalagay ating Saligang Batas ay
nawalang
kabuluhan dahilan Amendment No. 6. Dahil dito, nagawa ng Dole Pineapple,
Philippines na mag-angkin ng 30,000 hectares, mismong paglabag na sa
ating
Saligang Batas; ang Del Monte ay nagkamit ng 24,000 hectares; ang
Goodrich Sime Darby, 8,000 hectares; ang Aguinaldo Development
Corporation, 27,000
hectares; ang Manila Paper Mills, 35,000 hectares at iba pa. Kaya makikita na
bagamat mayroon itong nagawang tulong sa rice and corn, kapanabay
naman kasi
nito ay umiral din ang G.O. No. 47, iyong corporate farming program nila,
kung saan ito ay sumakop ng 104 corporations at mayroong 81,000 hectares
ang
nakuha nito. Kaya kung titingnan natin ang kabuuan ng programa ay
mayroong maliit namang tagumpay pero ang naging napakalaking kabiguan
nito ay kapanabay
namang ibinigay ang malawak na lupain, lalo na sa Visayas at Mindanao, sa
malalaking korporasyon at mga cronies at ang coverage nga ay totoong
napakaliit
kaya hindi nabasag ang monopoly.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Ako ay sumasang-ayon sa prinsipyo ng land reform,
subalit katulad doon sa amin sa lalawigan ng Laguna, ang tinatamaan ng
land reform ay
hindi iyong malalaking hacienda na nakakaiwas sa land reform sapagkat ito
ay pinalalabas na nahaluan ng agro-industrial entity, na ang mga
nagtatrabaho
rito ay suwelduhan, kundi ang kalimitan pong tinatamaan ay iyong mga
middle-class families. Hindi naman lingid sa inyong kaalaman na sangayon sa Public
Land Act noong araw ay hanggang sa ngayon, ang mga taong masipag ay
maaaring magkaroon ng 24 hectares of alienable and disposable land, at ito
ay naging
kanila sapagkat sila mismo ay magsasaka rin. Dahilan sa kanilang
pagpupunyagi, nakapagpaaral sila ng mga anak; ang iba ay naging
professionals doktor,
abogado, titser. Kung aagawin natin sa kanila ang kanilang lupang sinasaka
na naging kanila sa pamamagitan ng pagtatrabaho, sa pamamagitan ng
homestead
at alam naman ninyong bago naging kanila ang lupang iyan ay gubatan iyan,
pinagtatabasan nila ng katakut-takot na mga damo, mga malalaking kahoy,
at halos
ang kanilang buhay ay ipinain sa mga elemento, at ang iba riyan ay natutuka
pa ng ahas iyan ang idinadaing ng mga tao sa amin sa Laguna. Baka raw
naman
dito sa ating pagsusumikap na magkaroon ng land reform ay silang middleclass ang siyang maapektuhan at mawalan.
Hindi bale na raw na ipamigay iyong malalaki hacienda sapagkat iyan naman
ay kalimitang minana lamang nitong mga kasalukuyang nagmamay-ari. Pero
iyong
naging lupa nila sa pamamagitan ng pagtatrabaho, po ba iyan?
MR. TADEO: Kasi ganito iyan. Dapat muna nating makita ang prinsipyo ng
agrarian reform, iyong maging may-ari siya ng lupa na kaniyang
binubungkal. Iyon ang
kauna-unahang prinsipyo nito. Hindi dapat mangyari na pagkaraang ipairal

ang reporma sa lupa ay mawalan siya ng saka, ma-eject siya. Sa ilalim kasi
ng RA
3844 ay nagkaroon ng personal cultivation. Ang nangyari, ginamit itong
paraan ng mga panginoong may lupa para i-eject ang tenant, kaya iyon
mismong
prinsipyo, layunin o objective ng programa ay nasira. Sa halip na maging
may-ari ay napalayas pa.
Kaya ang ginawa rito noon ng Federation of Free Farmers, sa 85 araw at 25
bagyo na pinagdaanan, nagkaroon ito ng susog; inalis ang loopholes gaya ng
personal cultivation.
Ngayon, sa ilalim ng P.D No. 27, ang sinakop lamang kasi nito ay rice and
corn, at ang isang paraan para maiwasan ang P.D. No. 27 ay ang huwag
magtanim ng
rice and corn. Hindi sakop iyan ng agrarian reform program ni Ginoong
Marcos. Sa ilalim kasi ng agrarian reform program, may dalawang phases ito
iyong
tinatawag na Operation Land Transfer, seven hectares and above ang
coverage nito at bibigyan ng Certificate of Land Transfer ang magbubukid na
huhulugan
niya bilang amortizing owner sa loob ng 15 taon papunta roon sa tinatawag
na pagkakamit niya ng emancipation patent or title of land.
Pero itong mga maliliit na panginoong may lupa, iyong may seven hectares
below, covered naman sila ng operation leasehold; magkakaroon sila ng
fixed
rental. Tama naman ang mungkahi na ang pagpapatupad ng reporma sa lupa
ay dapat simulan sa malalawak na lupain. Kaya dapat mapasama rito ang
lahat ng
pananim, hindi rice and corn lamang. Dapat simulan ito.
Sa maliliit na mga panginoong may lupa, maaapektuhan sila ng leasehold.
Magkakaroon ito ng rental sa kanila. At gaya nga ng sinasabi ko noong
Sabado,
maaapektuhan ang maliliit na panginoong may lupa sa isang yugto ng pagunlad ng industriya, kasi kapanabay ng pagtutulak sa tunay na reporma sa
lupa,
itutulak din ang pambansang industriyalisasyon. Sa isang yugto ng pagunlad ng industriya, makikita ng maliliit na panginoong may lupa na hindi na
produktibo pa na manatili sila sa rental na ibinibigay ng tenant. Mas
magaling na pumunta sila sa industriya dahil sa sila ang unang bibigyan ng
pagkakataong makapag-invest o makabili ng share of stock. Sila rin ang
unang bibigyan ng pagkakataon na mapasok sa industriya. Ganito kasi ang
paraan noon.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Nais ko lang ipaabot sa kaalaman ng Committee na doon

sa amin sa Laguna ay iisa lang naman ang malaking lupain, ang Hacienda
Canlubang na
pag-aari ng mga Yulo, at ang kalimitan diyan, katamtaman lang ang lupang
binubungkal nila kaya nagkaroon ng niyugan. Tungkol sa mga kasama sa
niyog,
idinadaing ng mga maliliit na may-ari ng niyugan na wala naman daw
masyadong ginagawa ang mga magsasaka riyan at inaabangan na lamang
nila na magkaroon ng
bunga ang niyog; Pagkatapos, sa panahon ng pamumuti ay pumaparte sila;
kaunti lamang ang pagtatabas diyan. At kung nagkakaroon ng tinatawag na
intercropping, iyong pagtatanim sa ilalim ng niyugan ng mga halamang
katulad ng pinya, kape, at kung anu-ano pang gulay, sang-ayon sa custom sa
Laguna,
walang kaparte riyan ang may-ari ng lupa at ang lahat ng nakikinabang
diyan ay ang mga manggagawa.
Kaya ko ito sinasabi sa inyo ay hindi dahil sa ako ay kontra sa land reform,
kung hindi gusto rin nating magkaroon ng katarungan itong mga middleclass
people, sapagkat sa tingin ko naman, ang social concept of justice does not
mean grabbing the lands of the middle-class families in order to give them to
the poor.
MR. TADEO: Kaya nga kami naglagay dito sa line 23 ng retention limits sa
owner-cultivator. Sinasabi natin dito: Ano ba itong retention limits? Siyempre,
kagaya ng sinasabi ko, gaano ba ang sukat nitong retention limits?
Sa mga pag-aaral na isinagawa sa mga public hearings, nakitang pitong
ektarya pababa ang puwedeng maging retention limits sa owner-cultivator.
Ang
pangunahing batayan nito ay iyong nakalagay sa Bible para makita ninyo
ang pagkamaka-Diyos ng agrarian reform na ito; duon sa Chapter 2, verses
44-45 ng
Acts of the Apostles: Ibibigay ko ito batay sa pangangailangan ng bawat
isa. Ano ba ang sukat ng lupa na dapat maiwan sa panginoong may lupang
binubungkal o owner-cultivator na makasasapat sa bilang ng kanyang
pamilya? Kaya ang retention limits ay batay pa rin sa kanyang needs at
capacity.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I would like to congratulate the Committee for the
provision of Section 8 especially that which concerns the rights of fishermen
and
local communities to the direct or communal use of marine and fishing
resources. Even Commissioner Padilla agrees that the Laguna Lake should be
a communal
fishing ground.
At ang issue po riyan ay ganito: 10,000 pamilyang nakatira riyan sa paligid
ng Laguna de Bay ang nawalan ng pagkakataon na makapangisda sa
tinatawag nilang
ancestral fishing grounds dahilan sa malalaking korporasyon. Korporasyon na
naman ang problema, katulad ng nasabi ninyo sa lupa. Ito ay korporasyon
namang
nagtatayo ng mga tinatawag na fish pen at halos iisa lamang ang may-ari ng
mga korporasyong iyan. Dahilan diyan ay nawalan ng pagkakataon ang mga
maliliit
na mangingisda.
Ang kinakatuwiran diyan lagi nitong mga fish operators ay magiging mahal
daw ang isda sa Kalakhang Maynila kapag inalis iyan sapagkat sila raw ang
supplier
ng maraming murang isda. Pero sa Laguna, ang nararamdaman ko, itong
mga 10,000 pamilyang nakatira dito sa paligid ng Laguna de Bay ang
madaling naaakit ng
mga kapatid natin sa labas na nagsasabing ang pamahalaan at ang batas ay
para lamang sa mga mayayaman at hindi sa mahihirap. That is why I would
like to
congratulate the Committee for this very revolutionary and progressive
provision.
When one of the Commissioners interpellated a member of the Committee,
he pointed out the use of the word shall. For example, The State shall
undertake
a genuine land reform; The State shall recognize the right of farmers. And
his question was: Can the citizen, for example, sue the State if it fails or
refuses to do what is mandated in these provisions? Then, a comparison was
made between the Bill of Rights and the proposal on social justice. And the
answer was that the Bill of Rights contains civil and political rights while the
latter contains provisions to enhance the social and economic rights of
the citizens.
In other words, the civil and political rights which are contained in the Bill of
Rights are for the protection of the citizens against the encroachment
and violation by the State of the right to due process and equal protection of
the law. In short, the individuals exercise these rights as inalienable and
being recognized as such by the State. The State cannot prevent the
individuals from exercising said rights without violating the guarantees in the
Bill of
Rights.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights, therefore, is to protect and free the citizens
from interference by the government. But the provisions in the Article on
Social Justice strengthen social justice rights and the State is being
mandated through its instrumentalities, like Congress passing the necessary
laws to
give real meaning and substance to the concept of social justice, not just a
mere philosophical or rhetorical concept. Is my understanding of the
provisions of the Article on Social Justice correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. Basically, I would say it is correct.
MR. DE LOS REYES: And contrary to the fears of some of our colleagues, the
proposals are not communistic or socialistic, for in the constitution of
socialist countries, there is a separate article on social and economic rights.
For example, in the constitution of Russia, Chapter X, Article 180 thereof
states that the citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work; that is, the
right to guarantee employment and payment for their work in accordance
with
its quantity and quality; Article 119 states that the citizens of the U.S.S.R.
have the right to rest. Article 120 states that the citizens of the U.S.S.R.
have the right to material security; and Article 121 states that the citizens of
the U. S. S. R. have the right to education. Women in the U.S.S.R. are
accorded equal rights with men. These are not found in the proposals of the
Committee. The proposals of the Committee merely enjoin Congress to enact
the
necessary laws in order to enable citizens to enjoy social and economic
rights. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we agree with the Gentleman.
MR. DF LOS REYES: Thank you, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: May I add, however, that even if we have those rights in the
Article on Social Justice, that would not necessarily mean that the Article is
communistic because those are very human rights also.
MR. TADEO: Siguroy magandang linawin na itong usaping ito tungkol sa
salitang communistic. Gusto kong makita ng lahat na mismong si Pope
John Paul II ay
nanawagan ukol sa just distribution of income. Noong pumunta siya sa
Bogota, Colombia, ito ang kanyang sinabi. Ito ay para lang makita ninyo ang
pagkamaka-Diyos ng Article on Social Justice na aming ginawa.
In an Indian mountain village and in a poor Bogotan neighborhood, Pope John
Paul II made strong calls in support of peasant property rights and more just
distribution of income, thus, championing the cause of the peasants who
comprise about 40 percent of Colombias 28,000,000 people. The Pope said

that those
who work on the land deserve safeguards on their legitimate right and
guarantees for legal forms of landownership. He said that unjust situations
have to
be changed, especially in the case of agricultural workers who are obliged to
cultivate the land of others and who are exploited by big landowners, without
the hope of ever having possession of even a tiny piece of land. About twothirds of Colombias arable land is in the hands of four percent of the
population.
The Pope went on to say that the people have spent their hard life in the field
without sufficient salaries, without hope of obtaining a minimal piece of
land of their own and without receiving the benefits of a duly planned and
sweeping and effective agrarian reform. And for those who are small
landowners,
they had met many difficulties just to obtain adequate credits. He also said
that nobody should forget that the gifts which God has conferred on man
have
universal destiny and, therefore, these cannot be the exclusive property of
the few, be they individuals, groups or nations.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have a few questions on Section 1 for the record. I would like it confirmed
that Congress, in the name of social justice, cannot redistribute the powers
set forth in the Constitution. Will the Committee confirm that?
MR. GARCIA: What this part tries to provide is that there must be an effort to
redistribute economic wealth, therefore, political power must be accessible
to the majority of our people. For example, on our sectoral representation,
the party list system in a sense tries to provide this availability of
political power to those who normally are excluded from political decisions.
As to Section 2, is the power of the State to regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use and disposition of property total and absolute?
MR. GARCIA: No; in fact, during our previous discussions, we were
mentioning that under certain conditions, properties should be used for the
common good.
Under this provision, when the property is excessive and when its use is
unlimited, the State can come in to make sure that it is used properly for the
common good.
And finally, due process of law, I think, is very important. It does not violate
any other rights of an individual as found in the Constitution.
MR. ROMULO: And Section 2 would apply to all types of property because it
says property without qualification. What does the Committee mean by
property?
Is it real property, intangible property or any kind of property?
MS. NIEVA: I think that would apply to land resources and wealth but, as one
says, how do we regulate bank accounts and so forth?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, because property is an all-encompassing term. It can
include money, jewelry and cars. So, what does the Committee really mean?
MS. NIEVA: The State regulates this through taxation.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, in a negative way. But the term property in Section 2
refers to what type of property?
MS. NIEVA: I would say then that it would refer to practically all properties
that may be taxable or that may relate to the social good of the people; that
is, for the common good.
MR. ROMULO: In its broadest meaning, that applies to everything including
the clothes I have on. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: I suppose, if we extend it to that limit. But I do not know if the
State will take the trouble to regulate that kind of property.
MR. ROMULO: I only ask because of future interpretations.
MS. NIEVA: This was lifted from the 1973 Constitution.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but nevertheless, this is a new Constitution. So, we would
like to determine the limits or the nonlimits of the terms proposed in Section
2. As I am beginning to understand the Committee, it can apply to
everything and all types of property.
MS. NIEVA: And at the same time, it respects the right of ownership,
according to the declaration.
MR. ROMULO: It respects that, but on the other hand, we give the State the
right to regulate the acquisition, the ownership and the disposition of
property. I am not against this Article; I just want the parameters.
MS. NIEVA: I think our parameters would be whatever the common good
demands.
MR. ROMULO: The common good can be interpreted in many ways; that is of
no help.
MR. TADEO: Palagay ko, nakalagay ito sa 1973 Constitution. Ngunit
halimbawa, mayroon kang punong-kahoy at pag-aari mo ang punongkahoy
na ito, subalit kung
ang punongkahoy mo ay hahadlang sa kabutihan ng nakararami, ang
karapatan mo sa punongkahoy ay mawawala.
MR. ROMULO: In any case, this is always limited by the Bill of Rights and due
process and subject to legislative acts.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, I would say so, like just compensation and all the rest.
MR. ROMULO: In Section 4, when we speak of participation in policy- and
decision-making affecting the rights and benefits of labor, I take it that a
collective bargaining agreement would be one of the modes whereby they
would participate. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: If a company does not have a collective bargaining agreement,
in what form should this participation be?
MS. NIEVA: I think we provided for voluntary modes of settling disputes
between workers and employers, as well as collective negotiations which
would cover
the unorganized working force who do not enjoy the benefits of CBAs.
MR. ROMULO: Therefore, is the sponsor saying that the latter part of this
section spells out the ways and means whereby participation in policy- and
decision-making can take place? Is that its intention?
MS. NIEVA: In a very general way, but I think this can be worked out
depending on the situation of the companies, and maybe depending on what
the
legislature would provide for. It just provides in general for the right.
MR. ROMULO: I ask this because the opening line here says: It shall also
guarantee. They are very strong words, but the thrust of the sponsors
answers
seems to indicate that she is leaving this to voluntary methods. Is that
correct?
MS. NIEVA: Maybe, that is as far as disputes between workers and employers
are concerned, but maybe the Gentleman is referring to just and humane
conditions of work and job security.
MR. ROMULO: I am referring to the participative rights being granted to
employees and the manner by which those participative rights will be carried
out.
It is very important for us to know that. The sponsor has agreed that one
method is the collective bargaining agreement, and I think that is probably
one
of the best methods. But what are the other methods being envisioned?
MS. NIEVA: As we said, we provided for voluntary negotiations and voluntary
modes for the settling of disputes between workers and employers which can
take
various forms of labor-management cooperation as in other countries.
Because as we pointed out, five percent or so of our workers are covered by
CBAs, so
the vast majority do not enjoy these rights. That is why we are trying to
provide for some means by which they can seek redress.
MR. ROMULO: That is precisely my question. Where there is no CBA, because
labor is only 10 percent organized, what form does this participative device
take?
MS. NIEVA: Here we are being very general because we said it is up to the
legislature to provide for this later on, as well as for the different companies
to work out different ways of using voluntary methods of negotiations.
Maybe our Chairperson for labor can add something.
MS. AQUINO: One may notice that on line 4, page 2, there is a provision for
collective bargaining and negotiations. The concern here is to provide for
unorganized workers. So, this is the forum within which we can contemplate
statutory implementation of measures that would accommodate the need of
ununionized workers in their collective negotiation with management.
MR. GARCIA: If I may add, the reason why guaranteeing the rights of workers
to self-organization is important is, one of its consequences is that once
workers get organized, the possibility of participation becomes more real and
effective. And I think that recognition is rather crucial in this entire
arrangement.
MR. ROMULO: Fine. So, the base is really the first part of the sentence; that
is, self-organization.
MR. ROMULO: On lines 15 and 16, where reasonable return on investment is
mentioned, for the record, I assume that the Committee will take into
consideration the risks involved.
MS. NIEVA: Certainly, that is definitely an important element.
On agrarian reform, I have very few questions. Generally, did the Committee
calculate the potential costs of agrarian reform?
MS. NIEVA: There have been different figures set up by the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform itself; so, I think, Commissioner Tadeo here may have more
to say.
MR. TADEO: Noong binabalangkas pa lamang ang RA 3844, nakita nilang
kakailanganin ang malaking pondo para sa pagpapatupad nito. At ang isang
nakita nilang
paraan ay ang ibenta ang mga military camps, katulad ng Camp Aguinaldo.
Kasi nakita nilang bakit kailangang mas marami ang militar kung nagugutom
naman ang
sambayanan? Mula rito sa mga kampong ito, nakita nilang matutugunan ang
pagpapatupad ng tunay na reporma sa lupa kayat hindi na kailangan ng
militar ang
mga kampong napakalalawak. Ito ay noon pang panahon ni Ginoong
Macapagal noong 1963. Isang maaaring pagmulan ng pondo ay ang
pagbebentahan sa mga kampong
ito. Isa sa mga sinasabi ni Ginoong Montemayor ay kung hindi natin
mapapaalis ang foreign military bases, dapat lakihan ang rentals dito para
maging pondo
ng agrarian reform. Isa lang iyan sa mga pagtanaw nila. Ngayon, nakikita
naming kung iyong mahigit na dalawang bilyong piso na ginasta sa power
plant ay
iniukol lamang dito, baka ngayon ay walang insurgency at hindi na
nagugutom ang mamamayan.
MS. NIEVA: And Commissioner Monsod may have something to add to that.
MR. ROMULO: So, what is the calculated cost of land reform? The methods
whereby it may be financed were indicated but I am just curious as to what
the cost
may be. It is never certain, but what would be the total cost if this program is
carried out?
MR. ROMULO: In other words, we are not certain.
MS. NIEVA: No.
MR. TADEO: Isa lang ang sagot ko roon, kakailanganin nga rito ang malaking
pondo, pero ang itutugon naman kasi ng magbubukid sa sambayanang
Pilipino ay ang
kaunlaran, ang pagkalutas ng problema sa bumabagsak na ekonomiya dahil
magkakaroon ng purchasing power ang mga magbubukid na mayroong mga
35 to 40 million.
Uunlad ang mga industriya, magkakaroon ng job opportunities. Kaya
bagamat malaki ang kakailanganin, ang magiging tugon naman dito ay ang
kaunlaran ng
sambayanang Pilipino.
MS. NIEVA: I think the land reform record of Taiwan would give us a lot of
insights into how the Chinese have managed to improve their economy and
everything.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but Taiwan, in area and population, is very different from
us. For the record, I take it from Commissioner Tadeos previous answers to
other interpellations that fair and progressive system of compensation is
now the norm when it comes to land reform, rather than the old formula of
just
compensation. Is that correct?
MR. TADEO: Opo, dahil ang just compensation ay hindi naman ginamit sa
ilalim ng RA 3844 bagamat nasa jurisprudence ito kasama ang fair market
value. Ang
ginagamit natin sa ilalim ng RA 3844, sa ilalim ng right of preemption and
right of redemption ay ang reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay.
MR. ROMULO: Section 6 says:
The State shall recognize the right of farmers and farmworkers . . . to
participate in planning, organizing and management of the program . . .
which I take would be the program of land reform.
MR. TADEO: Yes.

MR. ROMULO: Again, this is correct and just but it leaves out the landowner.
That cannot be the intention of the Committee. Should he not equally
participate?
MS. NIEVA: I would say he is essential to the whole program.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. But the way this is written, it would seem to be
determined by the government and the farm workers to the exclusion of the
landowners.
MS. NIEVA: I do not think that was the intention at all. It was here just to
highlight the right of the farmers and farm workers to the organization of
cooperatives and to participate in farmers organizations. It does not say to
exclude but just to be consulted.
MR. ROMULO: So, in no way does the Committee exclude the landowners?
MS. NIEVA: In no way because I do not see how it could possibly even begin
to work without the landowners being an important element.
MR. ROMULO: How does the Committee envision the farm workers
participating in the management of the program?
MR. TADEO: Mayroong isang interview na ginawa sa ating Secretary-General
Flerida Ruth Romero tungkol sa agrarian reform. Ang title nito ay The
Government
Should Pay Attention to the Needs of the Small Farmers. Ito iyong tanong sa
ating Secretary-General: What should the government consider in
formulating
land reform policies? Ang sagot ng ating Secretary-General ay: The first
thing which government planners should do is to consult the farmers and the
real
farmers organizations, kung kaya nilagyan namin ng independent, not the
so-called Samahang Nayon which was run by the government. They must
involve the
farmers from the beginning of the policy-making stage to goal-setting,
implementing and problem solving. Iyon ho ang sagot ng ating SecretaryGeneral.
MR. ROMULO: So, that is the general concept of the Committee?
MR. TADEO: Sa pagpapatupad po kasi ng tunay na reporma sa lupa,
kakailanganin natin dito mismo ang mga magbubukid mula sa pagpaplano
pa lamang at sa
pagpapatupad nito hanggang sa mga nayon. Mula sa lahat ng opisina ng

agrarian reform ang lahat ng farmers organizations ay kabalikat nila sa
pagpapatupad
nito.
MR. ROMULO: Before I forget, I want to join in the comments of
Commissioner de los Reyes with regard to the middle-class farmers and so
on, because these
are the same sentiments I heard in Quezon and Batangas.
Section 7 says:
The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform in the disposition of
other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or
concession, subject to prior rights of original inhabitants . . .
Again we have the same basic questions; but I do not think the Committee is
excluding the lessees and the concessionaires in the disposition and
application of agrarian reform because apart from the original inhabitants
and homesteaders, there are obviously the lessees and the concessionaires.
Their
rights, I take it, will be respected.
MS. NIEVA: Under the due process of law, I think so.
MR. TADEO: Narito po iyong paliwanag tungkol dito sa statement na The
State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform in the disposition of other
natural resources it means full natural resource coverage in principle. The
term land should include all forms of natural resources, including mineral
and forest re-sources. Inuulit ko, ang mga mina, under the regalian doctrine,
ay pag-aari ng State. Ang ibig sabihin, iyong puwedeng sakahin ay suited for
agriculture; pero iba pa rin ang tinatawag na ecological balance upang
mapangalagaan ang ating kagubatan, at hindi kasali rito iyon. Ang sinasabi
lamang
dito ay iyong suited for agriculture na hindi sisira sa ecological balance:
. . . and water resources, whether public or private whether titled or untitled,
whether presently controlled by Filipinos or non-Filipinos over which
there is social conflict induced by an unjust distribution.
MR. ROMULO: Since the problem of mining rights is raised, the Commissioner
realizes that the government in giving concessions grants the
concessionaires
certain rights and so on. This Section 7 does not mean to interfere with those
rights assuming, of course, they were lawfully acquired.
MS. NIEVA: I do not think that with this present formulation, the rights of the
existing lessors or lessees or concessionaires should be ignored or not
taken into consideration.
MR. ROMULO: With regard to urban land reform and housing, particularly, did
the Committee calculate the potential cost of giving them affordable
housing?
MS. NIEVA: I think the word housing here would now embrace the newer
concepts of sites and services. We will just provide for the development of
the
sites and services and encourage the urban poor themselves to build their
own houses. There are different methods now that are being considered.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: And I think it is beginning to be evident that there will never be
enough funds to give everybody a home fully built and all that. Since the
government cannot do that, the private sector has to come in very strongly.
And, therefore, we wanted to include here that the government should
encourage
home financing to assist the poor to acquire their homes.
MR. ROMULO: In providing the infrastructure and neighborhood services, et
cetera . . .
MS. NIEVA: That would be the role of the government, specifically.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. But did the Committee consult the housing authority as to
the potential cost of this program?
MS. NIEVA: We did not get the exact figures, but certainly that is the trend
now of the program of the housing authority itself; that is, to provide for
sites and services and the Zonal Improvement Program that is called ZIP.
MR. ROMULO: So, we have not determined the cost of this either.
With regard to Section 11 which says:
Urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished
without due process of law . . .
did the Committee take into account the fact that squatting has been
declared as a nuisance per se and it is punishable under the Revised Penal
Code?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.

MR. ROMULO: Because what else does due process of law mean assuming
urban poor dwellers refers to squatters?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. That is a problem that we have to iron out.
Does Commissioner Aquino have something to say in this regard?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the provision on squatters and the urban
poor would address the problem of squatting as a social problem, such that
when the
committee report carries the provision that it should be in compliance with
the due process, I think the focus was essentially on procedural due process.
However, at the proper time, we would be willing to yield to the amendments
of the body on this matter.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. I have no quarrel with the approach. I just want to make
sure that if we wish to change the law, that should be made clear in this
provision.
MS. AQUINO: Yes. But it is seen better in the context of that premise that
squatting is a social problem. That may avoid any misleading, any
misinterpretation of the provision.
MR. GARCIA: I would just like to address a general question regarding what
Commissioner Romulo has presented several times already on the
affordability of
the programs on agrarian reform, natural resources reform and also urban
land reform. As one will notice, the Committee on Social Justice presents
provisions that have very general directions. In fact, in the sections, we
enjoin Congress to draw up a program that will effectively make real the
general
directions that we have provided. And we, in fact, hope that it will be
Congress that will create the structure and provide the necessary funds that
will
make possible these objectives.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I understand that. My concern is that we may be raising
the expectations of our people too much and if these remain unfulfilled,
there
will be further frustrations. So, I am just wondering whether a cost-benefit
analysis was undertaken in all of these programs that we are commanding
to
use Commissioner Bernas favorite phrase the legislature to undertake. We

have to balance this with the expectations of the people once they read this
Constitution. It is by way of caution really that I raised the point.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, I think that is understood. In other words, for us, these are
desired objectives. If we were to create social justice in our land, these
are the desired objectives for the people. Regarding the creation of an
economy that will give priority not just to the growth of the economy, to the
profits of the companies and so on, but precisely to the basic needs of our
people regarding land, regarding housing and so forth, we feel these should
be
the priority tasks that the legislature should consider in enacting laws. In a
way, that is how one gives flesh or gives concrete reality to giving more in
law to those who have very little in life.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan desires to make some comments.
SR. TAN: I just want to comment on the subject of squatters. To the layman,
when we say squatter, we usually think of those people who live by the
esteros or those who just come one night and take over a piece of land. But
to us the word squatter really means landowner who has been there for
10
years, 20 years, 50 years, 60 years and has been paying for the land but he
just does not get it because of the bureaucracy and graft and corruption. So,
the squatters are just asking for such services as our Chairman said and,
when possible, shelter and land. When we say anti-squatting, it refers to
the
overnight squatters in that sense.
MR. ROMULO: I am happy to hear that distinction.
Just for information, I gather that comprehensive agrarian reform, as found in
Section 12, is synonymous to genuine land reform and that there are no
differences in meaning. Is that correct?
MS NIEVA: I think that is what we mean.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you. I must again ask the basic question of health. Do
we know how much this will cost? It is a very extensive program which, of
course,
is desirable even from the point of view of the MEDICARE. Did the Committee
calculate the cost of an integrated and comprehensive health program? And
who
will bear that cost?
MS. QUESADA: I am glad the Gentleman has finally asked questions on

health because I have been waiting to explain what we mean by integrated
and
comprehensive health care program services. Actually, when we talk of
integrated health care services, we are thinking in terms of unifying all the
instrumentalities of government as well as the private sector in providing the
much-needed health care to our people. And this does not really fall just
within the purview or the responsibility of one government entity like the
Ministry of Health, but that is the responsibility as well of the Ministry of
Education and Culture which provides school health services to the school
population. It covers also the occupational health and safety services
provided
by the Ministry of Labor and Employment. It also includes the services
provided by the Ministry of National Defense and the health services
provided by
nongovernmental organizations. We are also talking in terms of how all these
entities, private and government, will be able to unify themselves in
providing the necessary protection and promotion of health of the people.
This concept actually extends beyond just structures or organizations.
Integration includes unifying these instrumentalities in terms of primary
health
care as an approach that has been adopted by the Philippines together with
the 134 member-states of WHO and UNICEF in meeting the health care
needs of the
people by the year 2000. So, while we would like that unification in terms of
policy in meeting these health care needs of the people, we have not come
up
with a computation of costs because, as I said, there has been no unified
approach. So, we cannot expect, for example, all the ministries to adopt this
approach. Right now, it is only the Ministry of Health which has responded to
the call of Health for All in the year 2000, but we would like the Ministry
of Labor and Employment to also adopt this approach. The approach aims to
make essential health services affordable and available to the population in a
manner that is both within the means of the government as well as of the
people.
When we talk of comprehensive health care, we mean the coverage of all the
services that should be provided to the people. This includes services in
relation to health promotion; disease prevention or specific protection
through programs like immunization, establishment of protective measures
and use of
protective wear to prevent injury or illness; and early detection and
treatment. The latter refers to the provision of treatment to the people so
that they
do not die and be denied their right to life because we do not have the
necessary treatment or medicines.
And then the fourth area is rehabilitation which addresses itself to the
problem of the disabled. The people who become disabled as a result of a
complication of injury, trauma or disease, and even the people who are
mentally retarded need to be provided with necessary services.
So, at this point in time we have not computed the cost of this integrated
and comprehensive approach. As I said, we would like the State to respond
to
this kind of integration and comprehensiveness of health services to meet
peoples basic right to health.
MR. ROMULO: So, the thrust of this Article is to rationalize and integrate all
the health services being offered by various governmental agencies as the
first phrase of the program.
So, I take it at that point that it will involve mainly administrative costs?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: I take it, however, that in the second phase, the program aims
to improve the services being given by these various programs.
MS. QUESADA: Definitely.
MR. ROMULO: Of course, that is where additional funding will be required.
MS. QUESADA: That will necessarily involve additional funding if we want to
address ourselves to the right of people to health.
MR. ROMULO: From what the sponsor is saying, this refers mainly to
government services. The private sector has its own rather extensive
MEDICARE Program.
Does the Committee envision to integrate that as well or are these separate
concepts?
MS. QUESADA: I think when we talk of integration, it is a merger, a
collaboration between private and public sectors. Right now, I think our
government is
looking into this collaborative effort with the private sector.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, for example, we have medical benefits from the SSS and
we have MEDICARE benefits which we find inadequate. So, in the private
sector we
supplement these with private health benefit programs. And the problem
arises when one tries to integrate the two. It is not an easy job to do and,
more
often than not, we prefer to just do it on a private basis because each
program has different benefits and to try to supplement those benefits is not
easy
for the private insurances or whatever other programs are available. This is
because they work on a different basis. So, one has to really think how he
can
integrate the two. It might be better just to have parallel services rather than
a totally public-private integrated System.
MS. QUESADA: I think the nitty-gritty of this kind of collaboration will be left
to legislation but the important thing now is the conservation,
utilization or maximization of the very limited resources. We know that the
government alone cannot provide health services. That is why we believe it
is
the States responsibility to encourage more intersectoral efforts in the
delivery of health services to our people. The Ministry of Health right now
has
done so by looking into how the private sector can provide the health
services which the State facilities alone could not provide.
MR. ROMULO: The other problem is that, by and large, government services
are inefficient. So, this is a problem all by itself. On Section 19, where the
report says that peoples organizations as a principal means of empowering
the people to pursue and protect through peaceful means . . ., I do not
suppose
that the Committee would like to either preempt or exclude the legislature,
because the concept of a representative and democratic system really is that
the legislature is normally the principal means.
MR. GARCIA: That is correct. In fact, people cannot even dream of influencing
the composition or the membership of the legislature, if they do not get
organized. It is, in fact, a recognition of the principle that unless a citizenry is
organized and mobilized to pursue its ends peacefully, then it cannot
really participate effectively.
MR. ROMULO: And it is meant to say influence the legislature or supplant
the legislature.
MR. GARCIA: No, not to supplant the legislature. But there are periods, for
example, when a legislature can be remiss in its obligations and, therefore,
the proper atmosphere is created so that the legislature can take note that
there is a clamor for a particular issue or direction. During martial law, this
was evident. When the legislature was no longer responsive to the needs of
the people, organizations of ordinary citizens a very concrete example is

the
NAMFREL and other citizens groups took on the task of ensuring that the
objectives of the people are defended.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, even in our Constitution now we have even provided for
initiative and referendum, and I think for these to really work, the people
have to
organize themselves.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I wanted that clarified.
How does the Committee envision Section 20 to operate, especially when it
says: participation at all levels of social, political and economic
decision-making?
MR. GARCIA: First of all, it is again a recognition of the principle that people
must be consulted especially regarding decisions which will affect their
lives. Very often, it is the people who are very close to the problem that is
why they can tell what the problem is, and, perhaps, the solution lies along
the same lines. The proper function of the legislature in this regard would be
to try to formulate mechanisms of consultation that would ensure talking
with the people and finding out their ideas. This should be done on a regular
and direct manner so that the State or the different planning agencies will
be able to harness the participation of the people in an institutional manner.
MR. ROMULO: I guess my question is really on the extent to which the
Committee would like the decision makers to undertake such consultation.
MR. GARCIA: As much as possible and as much as practicable. In the Ministry
of Trade and Industry, I understand they have now created the peoples
economic
councils. I remember a dialogue with Minister Concepcion where he was
discussing how multisectoral representations in different regions are now
being put
together so that they can help identify the resources in the area, the proper
use of those resources and the marketing facilities that they could make
available. The Ministry of Health, I understand, is also doing this kind of
consultation in many regions. So, I think this is a very interesting
phenomenon
that should be duplicated at all levels of the government.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would Commissioner Romulo yield to one question?
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: When he speaks of cost-benefit analysis, is he referring
to economic and financial cost or social cost, such as the enhanced dignity
and
pride of the farmer?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I refer to all those elements, particularly the financial and
economic cost.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: These are difficult to quantify.
MR. ROMULO: I do not think so. There must be studies concerning these. My
point is, we cannot just hand Congress these and say, Now, you go on and
do it
without considering the cost. All of us will pay for it, by the way, through
taxation.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, I am supporting the notion, except that I just want
to be sure that it is a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis which includes
social, cultural and environmental cost.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. I take it that the social aspects of these have been very
well considered by the Committee.
MR. BENNAGEN: On the question of cost, I wonder if the Committee
considered Proposed Resolution No. 253 which is a proposal by
Commissioners Guingona and
Villegas. Since the question of cost was raised, maybe it is appropriate to
look into this. Let me read the proposal:
A citizen, upon acquiring a fortune sufficient to ensure a reasonable security
for the members of his/her immediate family, as indicated by the amount of
his/her net assets, shall pay an annual tax of not more than one percent
thereof. The amount of tax on the level of the taxable net assets shall be
determined by law. The proceeds from the above tax shall constitute a
Special Provident Fund to provide homes for the homeless poor at subsidized
cost.
I suppose that if this were considered, it would have provided some
supplements to the cost that is expected to be shouldered by the State. And I
suppose
that it would not be limited merely to housing, but also to the other social
services.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have the Pag-I.B.I.G.
MR. BENNAGEN: No.
MS. NIEVA: Pag-I.B.I.G. is in the same vein as a provident fund.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, but this is a special proposal.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, I know.
MR. BENNAGEN: It says that a citizen, upon acquiring a fortune sufficient to
insure a reasonable security for the members of his/her immediate family as
indicated by the amount of his/her net assets . . .
MS. NIEVA: I said that will be taken cognizance of by the legislature, I am
sure, when they prepare the statutes that would implement this.
MR. BENNAGEN: My interest, of course, is to bring this out, so that maybe it
can be considered in the deliberations of Congress as a very concrete way of
meeting some of the costs, without necessarily just depending on the State,
because, as is, the government is already strained for finances.
BISHOP BACANI: May I also add that when the programs are implemented,
they will be implemented gradually. Hopefully, with the greater development
of the
country, funds will become more available. And then finally, as was
mentioned before, the cooperation of nongovernmental offices (NGOs) and
private
enterprises will be sought.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for some prejudicial questions on behalf of the
Committee on Sponsorship, Chairman Guingona would like to be recognized.

As indicated by the distinguished Floor Leader, I would like to raise what I
would consider as prejudicial questions on behalf of the members of the
Committee on Sponsorship who announced last Saturday that they will start
their work this week. As a matter of fact, we are scheduled to meet this
coming
Wednesday. Madam President, the Committee on Sponsorship and the
Committee on Style are tasked under the Rules of this Commission to look
into corrections
on the draft Constitution to avoid inconsistencies, inaccuracies and
repetitions.
During the weekend I reviewed the various articles that have already been
approved on Third Reading, particularly the Article on the Bill of Rights. In my
opinion, there are at least two provisions thereof which, depending upon the
decision of this Commission, might bring about inconsistencies. The first of
these is the question of whether government employees would have the
right to strike. This Commission approved the final text regarding the right to
form
associations, as amended by Commissioner Lerum, and further amended by
Commissioner de los Reyes, to read as follows:
The right of the people including those employed in the public and private
sectors to form associations, unions or societies for purposes not contrary to
law shall not be abridged.
I reviewed the Journal of the preceding day when deliberations on this were
made prior to amendments, and there was nothing said regarding this
particular
section on the right to form associations except the comment of
Commissioner Bernas that there must be the addition of the word UNION.
That is all.
Of course, there are some who say that it is true that this provision does not
include the right to strike, but, at the same time, it does not exclude. As
far as I am concerned, this means that we are leaving this matter to judicial
construction or interpretation. But now we have in the proposed Article on
Social Justice a specific reference regarding the right to strike. Thus, I will
respectfully suggest that in deciding this matter of whether government
employees, with or without exceptions, would have the right to strike, we
should relate this to the approved provision under the Bill of Rights so that
our
decision would carry with it an authorization for the Committees on
Sponsorship and Style to add to the Bill of Rights a provision which includes
the right
to strike with or without exceptions Without that authority, I do not believe
either Committee could make an addition to the provisions on the Bill of
Rights because this would be a matter of substance.
The other point that I would like to respectfully bring to the attention of the
honorable Commissioner is the matter of just compensation. We have
provided
in our Bill of Rights, in the matter of the exercise of the power of eminent
domain, the payment of just compensation which Commissioner Bernas has
explained to us as enunciated by the courts in many cases, to be the market
value plus the consequential damages minus the consequential benefits,
provided
the benefits do not exceed the damages. Madam President, I see two other
forms of compensation mentioned. In Section 5 of the proposed provision on
agrarian and natural resource reform, we speak of a fair and progressive
system of compensation. In Section 10 of the provision on urban land reform
and
housing, we speak of compensation which should be affordable to deserving
low-income citizens. I would respectfully suggest that we should perhaps
decide
on whether or not these two types of compensation suggested by the
Committee actually mean just compensation because if they really mean so
then we should
change the wording to just compensation. But if they do mean different
things, then who is going to bear the difference? Nevertheless, under the
provisions of the Article on Social Justice, I assume that the difference would
be that the proposed compensation would be less than the just
compensation
as contained in our jurisprudence. Again, the question would be: Who is
going to bear the difference? If it is the State, through subsidy or through
some
other form of State assistance, there will be no problem because the owner
in the transaction would still be receiving just compensation. But if it is the
owner who will bear the difference between the market value and the socalled progressive system of compensation, then we should make exceptions
here. In
which case, we in the Committee on Sponsorship as well as those in the
Committee on Style, with the permission of Chairman Rodrigo would like to
seek
authority to add the exceptions in the provision on the exercise of the power
of eminent domain already approved by us under the Bill of Rights. Without
that authority again, we cannot include such exceptions in the Bill of Rights
because these will be matter of substance.
Finally, I notice that in our previous deliberations, we have not been very
clear on the use of the word shall. This has prompted some of us to ask
whether the word shall in certain cases means mandatory while in other
cases it means merely directory. I suggest that in the discussion of this
particular Article, the Committee should inform us which provisions use the
word shall to mean must and which provisions use the word shall to
mean
maybe.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair and the Commission appreciate the remarks of
the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Sponsorship: But as to the
authority being
desired, the Chair suggests that the Committee on Sponsorship take time in
its work until after the different provisions shall have been clarified and
settled in plenary session so as to avoid any difficulty. We are sure that the
Committee will be guided by whatever is decided here on the floor. In fact,
caucuses will be held to harmonize, if there is need to harmonize or
reconcile, provisions in the different Articles of the proposed Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: May I just be allowed to make two remarks about the remarks
made by Commissioner Guingona. First of all, also in line with what Madam
President
has already said, I would oppose any attempt to give the Committee on
Sponsorship an advance authority to make any adjustment. If it is going to
make any
adjustment, this adjustment has to be done by way of presenting it to the
body for approval or disapproval.
Second, on the matter of just compensation as mentioned in Section 5 of the
present report and I am glad this came up my thinking is that there is
no
incompatibility between what the Bill of Rights says and what this provision
says when it defines compensation as fair and progressive system. Rather,
what we have here, it seems to me, is an attempt to fine-tune the meaning
of just compensation, which is a flexible meaning, for the purposes
specifically
of agrarian reform. The very general meaning of just compensation in the Bill
of Rights is that it is the price which the property will command in the free
market; that is, considering a seller who is not obliged to sell but is willing to
sell and a buyer who is not obliged to buy but is willing to buy. I
think that the just compensation in the Bill of Rights takes primary
consideration of the cost to the owner, what is just to the owner. But in the
attempt
here to call just compensation fair and progressive, there is a very clear
attempt to determine what is just compensation in the context. not just of
what
is due the owner but of the capabilities precisely of the underprivileged. It
will entail not a diminution of the substance of what the seller or the owner
will get but rather, I see progressive as meaning, as entailing not a
reduction of the price but a programming of the compensation in such a way
that it
becomes affordable to one who cannot pay immediately. So I really do not
see here incompatibility between the two but rather an attempt, as I say, to
fine-tune just compensation, precisely to give substance and meaning to the
general concept of social justice as an attempt to enable the law to make
things more affordable for those who cannot afford.
Those are just the two points I would like to make.,
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just a point of information.
MR. REGALADO: With respect to this matter of just compensation, the basic
jump-off point is the matter of fair market value because the formula is: fair
market value plus consequential damages, minus consequential benefits
provided that consequential benefits will not be more than the consequential
damages equals just compensation.
Commissioner Bernas has given us the jurisprudential meaning of what is fair
market value the amount for which the owner who is not compelled to sell
will part with his property to a buyer who is not compelled to buy. But under
martial law, that concept was changed by Mr. Marcos in a series of decrees,
some of which found their way into the Tax Code, to the effect that fair
market value is the amount which the owner of the property declares to be
worth
vis-a-vis the amount which the assessor declares the property to be worth,
whichever is lower. Of course, at that time we could not raise that issue of
why
the assessor is given the power to countermand the declaration of the owner.
So I think the Committee will also look into that aspect because we all start
with the phrase fair market value. But this has two meanings now the
first, by jurisprudence, because there was no law on that point but it was
declared by the Supreme Court as its interpretation; and the second, by
presidential decree, which says that it is the amount declared by the owner
or the amount declared by the assessor, whichever is lower. The latter is the
present rule on that point. I request that the Committee also look into this
because we are talking here of just compensation also in relation to the Bill
of Rights.
FR. BERNAS: This is still in relation to just compensation and to the
presidential decrees as referred to by Commissioner Regalado. In the course
of our
discussions of just compensation during our discussions of the Bill of Rights,
we always stated that the determination made by presidential decree was a
prima facie determination and, again, I do not see that as contradictory to
the jurisprudential meaning of just compensation; but rather, it is an attempt
by the legislative authority to create a prima facie case prima facie
meaning of just compensation always subject to review by judicial bodies
because
it is a question of fact. I am not aware of any Supreme Court decision which
says that that meaning is binding on the courts.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to propound a few questions to Commissioner
Bernas. I had a cursory glance at land reform in Taiwan when I was still a
member of
the Senate. The purpose of land reform in Taiwan is two-pronged: to give the
land to the cultivator and, at the same time, to give enough compensation to
the previous owner so that he could invest that money in business. And so,
land reform is successful in Taiwan.
But then, in order to enable the owner from whom the land was going to be
taken to invest the money in business, he had to be given a lump sum.
Otherwise,
if it were just a yearly pittance, he could not invest that in business. And so,
this is where the government comes in. The government finances the land
reform by paying the landowner the full amount. And the tenants pay the
government.
My question is: Is this Taiwanese practice feasible here?
FR. BERNAS: I am not a member of the Committee; I base my answer
completely on what is written in the text. I do not see the committee report
as excluding
that possibility. I agree completely with the Commissioner that the matter of
just compensation should not involve a diminution of what the owner gets.
The
primary thing here when we speak of progressive compensation is the
programming of what is due from the poor. The programming could be in
terms of what is
given to the government at the same time. That is perfectly possible under
this system.
MR. RODRIGO: In other words, there might be a difference between the
amount of just compensation and the affordable cost. In all probability, there
will be
such a difference. The affordable cost will be less than the just
compensation.
In that case, under this proposal, will the government come in to finance the
difference between the just compensation and the affordable cost?
FR. BERNAS: I do not see the possibility of massive land reform unless the
government somehow gets involved in the financing; and I think one of the
reasons the past land reform program did not have the success that it gave
the impression of having was precisely the fact that there was no effective
financing system for it.
So, all of these will have to be necessarily packaged into the land reform
program.
MR. RODRIGO: That is why the questions by Commissioner Romulo were very
pertinent. Has there been an estimate of its cost to the government? It is not
only
in the difference in the cost but also in the mode of payment. As I said, in
order to enable the former owner of the land who will lose his land and the
income from that land to invest in business, the money that he will get as
payment for the land must be paid in lump sum, unlike what was done here,
where
a pittance was given and the rest was in land bonds, payable in many years.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, may I volunteer some information
concerning the question of Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: I will be very glad to listen to the explanation.
MR. VILLEGAS: Although all the details will have to be threshed out by
legislation, definitely right now, as Commissioner Bernas says, unless the
government and the so-called official development agencies get involved
with our land reform, it will never take off.
Let me just inform the body that right now there are quite a number of
official development agencies, both government as well as nongovernment,
that are
willing to commit large funds to get small holders to acquire land from
existing landowners who will be compensated by these official grants or aid
that
will be coming in. So for the first time in our land reform history, there is the
possibility of our following the Taiwan model where existing landowners
do not have to be saddled with land bonds which were very unproductive in
the past. Also, there are very friendly outsiders who realize that we will never
have economic and social stability unless we have a thorough land reform
program going on that will apply not only to rice and corn but also to the
other
crops.
So, this is what is going on right now, and I am sure the Minister of Agrarian
Reform, Minister Alvarez, can. give more information or details of what I am
describing. But let me inform the body that definitely, we are looking into the
Taiwan model on how to enable land-owners to immediately get a lump sum
instead of waiting forever for a land bond.
MR. GUINGONA: I submit to the ruling of the Chair. May I just clarify that both
the Committees on Sponsorship and Style have included in our proposed
timetable that we would submit or jointly present to the body in plenary
session the proposed corrections for approval. But according to the timetable
as
contained in our Rules, we are supposed to begin our work on August 16, so
that would give us only one week.
I particularly mention this because what I perceive to be inconsistent as
regards the right to strike can be resolved now. I do not foresee any other
Article where this problem of just compensation would come up in the future.
If this can be decided now, the body would save us time which is a very
important element in our work, since we are under time constraint. But, of
course, if the body feels that it is better for us to wait and present the whole
thing together, then we submit.
Commissioner Bernas also gave us an additional explanation on the concept

of just compensation by citing jurisprudence, that it refers to the price which
a
seller who is not compelled to sell would get, and which a buyer who is not
under compulsion to buy would pay. I fail to see, however, how we could say
that a seller, under an expropriation proceeding, is not compelled to sell.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair has one question for Commissioner Guingona.
Does he mean that all difficulties should be decided this morning or after the
termination of the discussion on the Article on Social Justice?
MR. GUINGONA: The point is that perhaps this could be decided now because
there was no decision made when we discussed the Article on the Bill of
Rights.
The only reference to the right to strike was made by Commissioner Foz just
before the approval on et Third Reading of that Article. And he mentioned to
me
early this morning that he only expressed a personal opinion then and that
there was no discussion nor consensus reached on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will still have time for that particular issue during
the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other speaker?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Azcuna is next. But before we
call on him, may I just comment on the problem of the Committee on
Sponsorship.
MR. ROMULO: I understand the Committees problem, but the Rules is rather
clear when it says in part:
. . . the committee shall have no authority to change the sense, substance or
purpose of any proposal referred to it, and the sponsorship of the final
draft of the Constitution.
Whenever a proposal covers subject matters falling within the jurisdiction of
more than one committee, said proposal shall be referred to the committee
within whose jurisdiction the principal subject matter falls.
The sense of this as we had composed it is that any problem which may arise
with regard to interpretation is referred to the proper committee. If it falls
within the jurisdiction of several committees, then those committees should
meet jointly to settle the problem.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: May I react first to the statement of Commissioner Romulo?
MR. GUINGONA: The Commissioner envisions a situation where there is no
conflict among committees. We are assuming that there would be conflict
and we would
have to bring the matter to the Commission in plenary session. That is what
we are thinking about. Of course, if the committees agree in view of what is
contained in the Rules that Commissioner Romulo read, then we would have
no problem. However, if they do not agree, then we would have to run to the
Commission in plenary session to find out the real intention of the
Commission because the committees cannot speak for the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you; who is the next speaker?
Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Madam President.
I just would like to ask the Committee some clarificatory questions.
The first opening section of the Article on Social Justice states that social
justice is an imperative, and yet it does not state what social justice is.
Consequently, the subsequent sentence says: To this end, Congress
shall. . . and Section 2 says: Towards these end, the State shall . . . To
what end
will all these be done to promote social justice?
These sections do not define the components or elements and the end or
objective of social justice. It is stated here that it should be given primary
consideration in the pursuit of national development. But what is it?
MS. NIEVA: I think that is contained on lines 10 to 18, which read:
. . . reduction of social, economic and political inequities and the promotion

of structures and processes which protect and enhance the inalienable right
to human dignity, and the redistribution of wealth and power for the common
good.
MR. AZCUNA: Would the Committee have any difficulty in rewording that first
sentence to something along this line: THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
IS A
NATIONAL IMPERATIVE TO INSURE THE WELL-BEING AND ECONOMIC
SECURITY OF ALL THE PEOPLE BUT PARTICULARLY THE POOR AND THE
DISADVANTAGED IN LIFE? So, we would
have an objective right away.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, as we said before, the Commissioner may submit his
proposal ahead of time so that we can consider it.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, I will have it typed; I have a reworded Section 1, which I
will submit to the Committee at the proper time.
The other point is regarding Sections 1 to 18 which say that the State shall
do this; the government shall do that; the Congress shall do this, and yet
Sections 19 and 20 say that the people and their organizations should be
given preference in determining how social justice is to be achieved. I feel
that
there might be an inconsistency in saying that it is the task of the State to
provide for structures that will allow for social justice and yet in the end
it says: Let the people determine the structures that will achieve it. Is there
no inconsistency here?
MR. GARCIA: No; precisely what we are trying to say here is that although it
is the obligation of the State to make sure that there are structures which
will make possible social justice, still we realize that the enabling mechanism
of social justice in its most generic sense is the people. We should
protect the aspirations of the people but they should be properly organized
because without the peoples organizations, many of these structures which
the
State can provide will be meaningless. The Commissioner will notice that the
title of the last part is: Role and Rights of Peoples Organizations.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. GARCIA: It is a recognition of the importance of these organizations. And
the State should recognize also their independence so that the people
themselves can pursue their objectives. The State can provide the support
and the conditions but eventually it has to be the people, properly organized
in
their movements, who can pursue these objectives till the end.
MS. NIEVA: Maybe one example is the Samahang Nayon which was imposed
by the State with very little consultation with the people. Most of these
organizations are now inactive and have not been effective because the
people themselves were not consulted from the very beginning.
MR. AZCUNA: That is all right. Finally, regarding this provision on women, I
believe that this treats more of rights of working women rather than
womens
rights in general. Is that right?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, because we have included womens rights in general in the
MR. AZCUNA: Would the Commissioner be amenable to the inclusion of
CHILDREN in this particular provision to read: Women and CHILDREN?
MS. NIEVA: We are open to that.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
Madam President, Commissioner Bengzon has some remarks with regard to
the observations of the previous speakers.
MR. BENGZON: I just would like to remark on the comments of Commissioner
Rodrigo and the thrust of the questions of Commissioner Romulo a few
minutes ago.
I am a member of the Committee and I would like to state that the Article on
Social Justice is an article that articulates concepts and objectives. This is
very clear. We do not want to spell out details in this Article. It is up to the
Congress or to the proper agency of the government to pursue these
concepts and objectives under circumstances that are available to the
government and to the people. This could take a few years; this could be on
a
long-term basis. But what we are putting here are concepts and objectives
which we feel should be attained. As to whether they would be attained or
they
may remain Utopia is another question. But the fact is that we are providing
the direction. So I hope that the Commissioners would take it in that light.
If there is any vagueness in these concepts, then we would be happy to hear

their remarks and be open to amendments that would be introduced.
Thank you.
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me add a few comments to those of Commissioner
Azcuna regarding that seeming contradiction between some of the
provisions, particularly
the role of the State and the role of peoples organizations.
In the context of this Article, we pinpoint two major actors in the realization
of social justice: On the one hand, we have the executive, legislative, and
judicial structures of government, and on the other, we have the peoples
organizations.
The Article mandates the State to provide the formal structures that would
allow the achievement of social justice. Peoples organizations would
complement
these formal structures by providing certain informal structures within which
they can exert pressure on the various structures of government to be more
responsive. We do not see these as contradictory; rather we see them as
complementary.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.
I would like to address a few questions for Mr. Agrarian Reform,
Commissioner Tadeo.
On page 2, Section 5, line 22 states: undertake the just distribution of all
agricultural lands. I would like to underscore the word all. When the
Commissioner speaks of all agricultural lands, is he referring to the following:
(1) all tenanted private agricultural lands regardless of crop; (2) all
haciendas and plantations regardless of crop and land tenure arrangement;
(3) idle, abandoned and foreclosed lands suited for agriculture; and (4) public
lands and/or government and military reservations and ranches suited for
agriculture? Is this the intent of the words all agricultural lands?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I proceed to another question, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: On behalf of the Committee, may I briefly reply to
Commissioner Sarmiento?
MS. AQUINO: Section 5, line 22 provides that the State undertakes the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, regardless of whether planted with rice
or corn. This provision is pertinent to our background discussion in the
Committee that as the land reform program stands now, it covers only about
4.1
million hectares, which is only about one-third of the agricultural lands. On
the basis of this program, there is only a maximum of 17.1 percent of the
landowners who would be affected by operation land transfer. As for the
tenants, it covers only about 393,780 or roughly only five percent of the 7.7
million workers engaged in agriculture, fishing and forestry.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I go to another point, Madam President.
Section 5, line 8 reads: The State shall undertake a genuine agrarian reform
program . . . When the Commissioner says genuine agrarian reform
program,
is he referring to several phases of genuine agrarian reform? For instance,
phase 1, confiscation and distribution of lands owned by the deposed
President
and his cronies; phase 2, the expansion of free distribution to all crop lands;
and phase 3, the nationalization of transnational agri-business plantations
and the total abolition of feudalism.
May I be clarified on this point by Commissioner Tadeo?
MR. TADEO: Ang binabasa ni Commissioner Sarmiento ay ang programa sa
lupa ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas.
MR. SARMIENTO: When he speaks of genuine agrarian reform program, is the

Commissioner referring to all these phases I mentioned?
MR. TADEO: Those phases are still subject for legislation. The phases of that
genuine agrarian reform are those being envisioned by the farmers
organization known as the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas. Ngunit dahil ito
ay Saligang Batas, iyon lamang mahahalagang bagay ang mapapalagay dito.
MR. SARMIENTO: But is this the intent of the Committee on Social Justice or
of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas which is the largest peasant
organization in the Philippines?
MR. TADEO: Sa panig ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, may dalawang
yugto lamang ang reporma sa lupa. Ngunit magdadaan pa naman ito sa
lehislatura. Ang
mahalagang ilagay sa Saligang Batas ay iyong maaaring maging gabay sa
paglikha ng mga detalye ng lehislatura.
MS. AQUINO: On behalf of the Committee, it is very clear from the tenor of
Sections 5 to 9 that the genuine land reform program is not confiscatory.
Social
justice in land reform intends to equalize bounty. It does not intend to
equalize oppression. We do not advocate confiscation of property.
BISHOP BACANI: Besides, even though that is the sense of the proposal of a
particular group, I do not think that that is precisely the sense of the
Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: That is why I want to be clarified.
Anyway, thank you for the clarification.
Section 10 on lines 8 to 19 speaks of a continuing urban land reform and
housing program. When the Committee speaks of urban land reform, does it
refer to
the urban land reform which was initiated by the deposed President?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we are referring to that land reform program initiated by the
deposed President.
MR. SARMIENTO: All right.
During the time of President Marcos, he issued many decrees, like P.D. Nos.
1517 and 1640; Proclamation Nos. 1767, 1893, 1967, and many others. As a
matter
of fact, one proclamation was issued declaring Metro Manila as an urban land
reform area but before one could avail of the benefits under that
proclamation, there were so many requirements; for instance, he should
have stayed in that place for 10 years, he should be a genuine tenant, and
he should
have the right of first refusal. And not only that President Marcos issued
several limitations for urban land reform to prosper. He limited it to only 244
sites, not the entire Metro Manila area.
Is that the intent of this Committee, to refer only to these 244 sites and to
the limitations provided in several proclamations on urban land reform?
MS. NIEVA: No. I think that Article XIV, Section 12, which explicates the urban
land reform proviso, is maintained. However, for the present Constitution
that we are formulating, we are asking the State to carry out the
implementing legislation not necessarily according to the rules or regulations
and PDs
that former President Marcos had mandated; we are asking the State to
implement and flesh out this directive.
MR. SARMIENTO: So we are not just adopting the proclamations and decrees
issued.
MS. NIEVA: No, we are not adopting them in toto. The concept is very, very
sound. But, again, the way it was carried out left many loopholes.
MR. SARMIENTO. I thank the Commissioner for that clarification because such
decrees to me were restrictive and oppressive because they limited urban
land
reform to certain sites but not to all sites with urban poor dwellers and
squatters.
Section 11, line 25 on page 3, states: their dwellings demolished without
due process of law. I have to commend the Committee for the inclusion of
the
words without due process of law because during the past administration,
we handled several cases of the urban poor. After their houses had been
dismantled, the dwellers were ejected on the basis of mere clearances issued
by the National Housing Authority and the City Engineers Office. As a matter
of fact, another decree was issued during the past regime, P.D. No. 691,
dated May 16, 1978, which, according to the then administrator of the NHA,
General
Tobias, was the strongest anti-squatting issuance from the President. It was
the strongest because the decree directed all local government officials to
immediately apprehend all squatters and demolish the illegal Constructions
they had built on public and private lands and after the arrest and
demolition,
it was only then that they were prosecuted before the appropriate court.
I have two more points. My concept of social justice is justice to the common
tao to the little man. Dean Sinco of the UP College of Law defines social
justice as looking after the well-being and economic security not only of large
groups but also of particular persons or interests who are under real
handicaps in the struggle for existence. I notice that the Article on Social
Justice and this was also the observation of Commissioner Azcuna
mentions
groups like farmers, fishermen, workers, indigenous cultural communities
and women, but it has no provision on youth. In the Article on the Legislative,
we
provided a system of sectoral representation whereby groups like women,
urban poor, peasants, indigenous cultural communities and youth were
included. But
in this Article on Social Justice, no mention is made of those important
sectors, as well as those of children, infants and mothers. We all know that
these
sectors are exploited in our society. We have child labor, child prostitutes, et
cetera.
MS. NIEVA: We do not want to duplicate, since we were told that the Article
on the Declaration of Principles has several sections that deal with the youth,
providing for their physical, mental and spiritual welfare and also against
their exploitation.
Also, in the Article on Human Resources, there is a section on that; likewise
in the Article on Family Rights, we are also adverting to the youth. So we
thought that we would not wish to be accused by the Committees on Style
and Sponsorship of duplication. But I think the observation was already made
that
the exploitation of minors at work should certainly be mentioned here. And
we will deal with that.
MR. SARMIENTO: Does not the Chairman of the Committee think a provision
on youth should be included since we already have a provision on women?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: We can also include provisions on indigenous cultural
communities and on labor just for the sake of fairness.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the Article on Social Justice assumes a very
peculiar bias, and the bias is in favor of the underprivileged, the oppressed
and
the marginalized sectors. Our focus is that the cause of this marginality is the
social structures.
The problem of the youth such as exploitation of minors as workers or as
farmhands might be the only problem pertinent to this Article. We also
believe
that the problem of pedophilia and other problems would be more effectively
addressed in the other Articles of the Constitution.
MR. SARMIENTO: But during our discussion on sectoral representation, we
made it clear that the youth is one of the marginalized sectors, so much so
that we
included the urban poor, laborers, peasants, women indigenous cultural
communities and the youth.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, we appreciate that.
MR. SARMIENTO: So maybe at some appropriate time, will the Committee be
willing to accept an acceptable and palatable provision on youth?
MS. AQUINO: For clarification, if only to settle and put to rest the problems of
the youth, I think the reason we incorporated the youth as a sector in the
scheme of sectoral representation is that they comprise a basic sector, not
essentially because they belong to an underprivileged or marginalized sector.
That would give us the conceptual difference of approaches in the Article on
Social Justice.
MR. SARMIENTO: But will the Committee be willing to accommodate at the
appropriate time provisions on infants or children and mothers?
MS. AQUINO: For the moment, I am very reluctant to incorporate those
provisions in this Article on Social Justice, but it is my humble submission
that they
should be rightfully placed in the Articles on Human Resources, Declaration
of Principles and State Policies and Family Rights.
.MR. SARMIENTO: As for my last point, Section 1, line 10, speaks of reduction
of social, economic and political inequities. Does not the Commissioner think
that since the thrust of social justice, being the centerpiece of the 1986
Constitution, is the enhancement of human rights or the realization of human
dignity, should we not use the word ELIMINATION instead of reduction?
MS. NIEVA: I think we are just being practical, and so we feel that we can
start with reducing. I do not know if we will ever eliminate those inequities
entirely. But as the Commissioner says, we will entertain any amendment to
that effect.
MR. SARMIENTO: That is all right. Line 11 speaks of promotion of structures
and processes. Can we not replace the word promotion with CREATION, so
that
it will read: CREATION of structures and processes which protect and
enhance the inalienable right to human dignity?
MS. NIEVA: We can consider that as another amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Tingson would like to be recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I have just two or three short questions
directed to Commissioner Tadeo.
I know that a great deal of ideas about the agrarian reform programs of this
committee report, if I understand it right, are mainly from Commissioner
Tadeo
When we say here genuine agrarian reform, does this mean that the
Commissioner was not satisfied with President Macapagals agrarian reforms
and those of
the deposed President Marcos P.D. No. 27 which attempted to introduce
agrarian reforms?
MR. TADEO: Sa kaalaman ni Commissioner Tingson, kagaya po ng
ipinaliwanag ko kanina, ang coverage ng land reform program ay mga areas
planted with rice and
corn lamang. Sa P.D. No. 27, ang nasakop na kabuuang area cultivated by
13.7 percent lamang at ang farmers involved ay 13.1 percent lamang. Kaya
makikitang
hindi pa nawasak ang land monopoly.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you very much.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may I add some more to the answer of
Commissioner Tadeo. The inadequacies of the land reform program of
President Macapagal
and that of President Marcos in P.D. Nos. 2 and 27 would account for four
factors:
The first factor is the inadequacy or the very narrow coverage when it
provided only for the rice and corn lands which according to statistics would
only
benefit less than 1/3 of the tenants or about 393,000 as compared to
521,000 more who remain as leaseholders because they work in farms which
are less than
seven hectares.
The second factor is the very weak governmental machinery in the
implementation of the program because the implementors are either
inadequate or
indecisive.
The third factor is the economic difficulties arising from the mandate of
President Marcos land reform program. P.D. No. 27 speaks of high-yielding
varieties which necessitate heavy infusion of expenditures for the purchase
of machinery and fertilizers. This is a kind of relationship that breeds all
the more the dependence of the farmers on usurious interests. In the long
run, what we have are paid or waged farm workers because they are being
eased out
from the equitable sharing in the land reform program precisely because of
the oppressive consequences arising from the implementation of the
program.
Then, of course, we are aware of the forced contribution to the Samahang
Nayon which also draws further the purchasing power of the farmers.
Finally, the fourth factor is that the land reform program of President Marcos
is basically flawed because it lacks the participation of the farmers in its
planning and implementation. This is the comprehensive concern of genuine
land reform as it is being envisioned in this Article.
MR. TINGSON: The answers are very well-said and I thank the Commissioner
very much.
My next question is: When we speak here of to own directly or collectively
the lands they till, is this land for the tillers rather than land for the
landless? Before, we used to hear land for the landless, but now the slogan
is land for the tillers. Is that right?
MR. TADEO: Ang prinsipyong umiiral dito ay iyong land for the tillers. Ang ibig
sabihin ng directly ay tulad sa implementasyon sa rice and corn lands
kung saan inaari na ng mga magsasaka ang lupang binubungkal nila. Ang
ibig namang sabihin ng collectively ay sama-samang paggawa sa isang
lupain o isang
bukid, katulad ng sitwasyon sa Negros.
I am from Negros Occidental so I need to know this matter. When we speak
of distribution of all agricultural lands in relation to this genuine land
reform program, does this include sugar lands?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
I notice that Commissioner Tadeo is very fond of quoting verses from the
Scriptures and I appreciate that because we were all given copies of the Holy
Bible by the Philippine Bible Society and the Koran by the Moslem Society.
In the Book of Acts, Chapter IV, may I read just a few verses:
The group of believers was one in mind and heart. No one said that any of
his belongings was his own, but they all shared with one another everything
they
had. With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus, and God poured rich blessings on them all. There was no one in
the
group who was in need. Those who owned fields or houses would sell them,
bring the money received from the sale, and turn it over to the apostles; and
the
money was distributed to each one according to his need.
Since Commissioner Tadeo seems to be very knowledgeable in the Scriptures
and I am sure he has read this portion, may I ask whether or not Section 5 is
partly based on the philosophy of this portion from the gospel?
MR. TADEO: Ito ay isang paglilinaw lamang. Iyong sinabi ko tungkol sa ating
Secretary-General Flerida Ruth Romero ay halaw sa isang interview na
naganap
noong April 20, 1986 noong wala pang Con-Com. Baka masabi ninyong
nakikialam ang ating Secretary-General. I just quoted her in that interview.
Ang mahalaga kasi dito sa Acts 4:32-35 ay kung ano bang talaga iyong just
society o lipunang ninanais ng mga unang Kristiyano noong namatay na si
Kristo.
Ang isa pang mahalaga dito ay ang konsepto o kaisipan ng Panginoon
tungkol sa property o pag-aari. Dito ay sinasabi Niyang ang pag-aari ay
para sa lahat,
at ito ay ipamamahagi batay sa pangangailangan ng bawat isa Dito po natin
makikita ang ibig sabihin ng isang just society na nagsisimula sa concept
of
property na ayon sa Panginoon ay para sa lahat.
MR. TINGSON: Maraming salamat po.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I suggest; suspension of the session?
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty this afternoon.
It was 12:18 p.m.
MR. RAMA: We are still in the period of interpellations on the Article on Social
Justice. There are still nine Commissioners registered to interpellate,
and we are hoping to close the debate to enable us to move a little faster.
I ask that Commissioner Natividad be recognized, Madam President.
May we ask the members of the Committee on Social Justice to please join
the Chairman.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you, Madam President.
At the outset, I would like to premise my questions with my belief that there
can be no social justice unless there is a redistribution of land and more
equitable diffusion of wealth.
During the Fifth Congress of the Philippines, that was two terms before
martial law, we were then in the opposition and we were sponsoring the
Agrarian
Reform Code. We were told that the failure of the agrarian reform laws was
due to the fact that the government bought large landed estates from
landlords
and then gave or sold these lands to the farmers. Thereafter, the
relationships between the tenants and the landlords were presumed to have
been cut and
the farmers who became owners of the land were expected to be successful.
However, the fact that they did not have the funds to maintain the
cultivation of
the land was a vital factor. In addition, the farmers did not have the funds for
fertilizer, for their day-to-day living, for the education of their
children, and for medicine. Consequently, we were told when we were
drafting the Agrarian Reform Code at that time that within five years the
lands were
sold back to the former landowners and the government had to buy the
landed estates once again in a vicious circle.
Then came the time of President Marcos. Again, we were told that land
reform failed because the Land Bank did not perform well as expected. It was
supposed
to fill the void left by the landlords by lending money and helping the farmers
sustain their day-to-day living. We were also told that land reform failed
because not all agricultural lands were included under land reform, and so
forth.
My question is: Since we are embarking on this new thrust in land reform,
would these pitfalls that once caused the failure of land reform before be
avoided in this proposal? May I ask the Committee whether these pitfalls that
have been cited are now dealt with effectively and adequately in this new
Article on Social Justice?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, with regard to the second part of the Commissioners
observation. A portion of Section 6 says that the State shall provide the
necessary
support to agriculture through appropriate technology and adequate financial
production and marketing assistance because we agree that the lack of such
support was the main reason for the failure of land reform.
MR. NATIVIDAD: On what page is that?
MS. NIEVA: This is on page 2, Section 6, lines 28 up to 30.
MR. NATIVIDAD: What role does the Land Bank play in this matter?
MS. NIEVA: I suppose that is one of the instrumentalities that would be called
upon to provide adequate financial assistance.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, so this includes the support that the Land Bank will
extend even without mentioning that bank. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, but we presume that it would include the various agencies.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. The other observation I would like to mention is that in
the implementation of land reform the small landowners like teachers who
have
served to own two, three or seven hectares of land were the main
complainants against the land reform program of the previous
administration. Will this be
repeated in the same vein in this new program? Will they not be allowed to
manage and till their own lands? Remember that these are small land
owners. Our
teachers have developed the habit of being frugal and saving in order to buy
land for themselves. When we were young, the slogan was land is wealth.
This
slogan was printed even on school books. And so, consequently, our teachers
saved money and bought a few hectares for themselves. However, under
land
reform they were deprived of their lands and they cried out and complained
against this unfair and unjust practice. My question, Madam President, is:
Shall
we maintain this unfair and unjust feature of our present land reform
program in the land reform program being proposed under this Article?
MS. NIEVA: We have said that the distribution will be subject to the retention
limits that would be provided for by Congress. Congress would provide
specifically for the size of land that may be kept in order to preserve the
viability of the operations.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But our command to the legislature is not clear on this
matter.
MS. NIEVA: We are not stating here the specific sizes of land because these
might vary with the different crops that we are considering.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about mechanization, is this important to the
Committee?
MS. NIEVA: I think that will be referring to appropriate technology as found on
line 29.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is this not prescribed by this Article?

MS. NIEVA: No, we just say it should be appropriate because the
mechanization may take forms which may not be appropriate to the
situation. So, definitely
we are not against technology as such. We think that if it is called for, there
should be mechanization of these farms.
Am I correct to presume that the principle established in the case of
Samanillo vs. Cruz in 1947, that social justice cannot be invoked to trample
on other
rights which are also protected by the Constitution, is still upheld in this
MS. NIEVA: Yes, I think we have stated that.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I just want to clarify this for the record. Will the provision on
the right of workers for self-organization again include public employees?
MS. NIEVA: As stated here, yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will this include military and police?
MS. NIEVA: As we said last Saturday, the Committee is divided on this score.
Originally, the subcommittee had excluded the military and the civil defense
from exercising the right to strike. However, the other members of the
Committee felt very strongly that we would just say that every government
worker has
the right to strike and we shall leave the decision to the body.
MR. NATIVIDAD: May I clarify this again. If we say that the workers have the
right to self-organization, does it follow, in the Commissioners concept,
that that right includes the right to strike?
MS. NIEVA: As we said, we are divided here. For some of us, it does not
necessarily follow; and for others, it does. So we are leaving again this
decision
to the body.
MR. NATIVIDAD: May I, therefore, cite an experience of another country
where the police is allowed to strike. During a police strike in New York City,
U.S.A., a riot occurred which caused $1 billion damage in property.
MS. NIEVA: That is why those of us who believe that this right to strike should
not be extended to all government employees have taken such examples in
other countries into consideration. So I think this is a matter that will be
debated upon very strongly in this forum.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In other words, the Committee is willing to consider an
amendment so that the matte can be decided by the Commission?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: For example, a military organization goes on strike and it
refuses to obey orders to return to work. Another military unit is sent to
enforce the orders. We will have an armed military confrontation in this case.
MS. NIEVA: There is a school of thought among the members of the
Committee that the military and the civil defense forces do not strictly fall
under the
purview of the term workers. I do not know how the Commissioner views
that concept.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The very nature that they are armed is dangerous to the
stability of our government. If the government will allow them to strike, then
I
will have to object.
MS. NIEVA: Personally, I agree with the Commissioner. But, as I said, we are
divided in the Committee. There are some of us who feel that perhaps the
term
workers does not cover the military and the civil defense. So that will be
really up to the body to decide.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I thank the Chairman, anyway.
So, that will have to be settled by an appropriate and seasonal amendment.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. As we said, we welcome the amendment ahead of time so
the Committee can discuss this matter.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Just one more question. I know the Floor Leader would like
me to abbreviate matter so I am cooperating.
Section 14 on page 4 states: The State shall maintain an effective food and
drug monitoring system . . . I am interested in this provision because I am
wondering whether or not this drug monitoring system will include a program
on the prevention of drug abuse. We all know that drug abuse is a very
serious
threat not only to the health of the nation, but also to the general well-being
of the people, most specifically the youth.
I would address this to Commissioner Quesada, that perhaps we can include
in this provision the prevention of drug addiction. It should be the main
concern
of the State because when we speak of the health of the nation we have to
face reality that we ought to have a program for the prevention of drug
addiction.
MS. QUESADA: The problem of drug abuse is definitely addressed in this
particular provision. In fact this goes beyond the problem of drug abuse.
When we
talk about the food and drug monitoring body, it encompasses all other areas
that would refer to food and drugs. But definitely we consider the problem of
drug addiction as a major health problem which the State should address,
and if the Commissioners can come out with a formulation that would
address
specifically the problem of drug addiction, then I suppose the Committee will
be amenable to its consideration, except that I think that would probably
fall within the purview of legislation.
In fact, we have already the Dangerous Drugs Act, which I understand the
Commissioner himself formulated when he was in the Congress.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, I was the author of that law; but there should be a
continuing concern for this problem to be enshrined in the Constitution.
May I ask one more question. What is the percentage of the disabled in our
country?
MS. NIEVA: During a public hearing, we were told that they constitute 13
percent of the population but then that is probably a very broad view.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I was the author of the law on mobility of the disabled in the
previous Batasan and I wrote that law on the basis of the figure that they
constitute 10 percent of the population. This is a universal ratio. Now, it is 13
percent, so it is increasing.
MS. QUESADA: There are an estimated 800,000 disabled.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, the figure that was submitted to us in the
public hearing is around 6.75 million disabled.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, this provision on the disabled, Section 15, goes beyond
just giving them more mobility. It also provides a program for their
rehabilitation.
MS. NIEVA: That is the main emphasis; so that they may be totally integrated
into the mainstream of society. That is the objective.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In the old Batasan, our attention was often called that this
was a very neglected area of public service. That law which I authored is the
first law on the disabled, but it only gives increased mobility for the disabled.
So this provision goes beyond that. Is that right?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, as we said, it is for the rehabilitation, self-development and
self-reliance of the disabled towards their total integration into the
maintenance of society. In fact, we are providing for a special body that will
handle this efficiently.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will it be private or government?
MS. NIEVA: It is a government body. The State shall establish a special
government body with private participation.
recognized to interpellate.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I just want to clarify certain points from
the members of the Committee. I notice that our sections now on social
justice
total 20 as against the previous social justice section which was only one.
However, I would like to ask the Committee whether or not these social
justice
provisions are all-encompassing, considering that I notice in other portions of
the 1973 Constitution carried over to the present formulation that we have
several social justice clauses. To give an example, we have the clause on
social services, protection to labor, equal protection of the law, due process,
non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax, the clause against
involuntary servitude, the clause on the non-imposition of excessive fines,
free
access to the courts, emancipation of the tenants, expropriation of private
lands and free education. Are these also covered by the social justice
provisions or are these considered in their totality as part of the social justice
concept?
MS. NIEVA: Most of them are explicitly provided for in this Article. However,
some of them are included in the Bill of Rights, Education, Human Resources
and some are in the Article on the Judiciary, like free legal services.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, when we say social justice, we also think
of other provisions of the Constitution?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, definitely.
MR. MAAMBONG: According to Commissioner Bengzon, we have to proceed
in terms of concepts. I would want to be clarified on Section 1. It is my
understanding
of Section I unless I am wrong that the main objective of the social
justice provision is the pursuit of national development because it says that
the
primary consideration of the State is the pursuit of national development In
the pursuit of national development, I notice that there are two things that
the State is supposed to do: One is to reduce inequities in social, economic
and political life; and the second is the promotion of structures and
processes. Is that a correct understanding that the main objective is pursuit
of national development?
MS. NIEVA: No, I do not think so. Actually, we should consider all of these
while we are pursuing our objectives of national development.
MR. MAAMBONG: Because my understanding of the provision is that to
pursue national development, first, we must reduce inequities. I have no
difficulty with
that. However, I have some difficulty on the promotion of structures and
processes. Does this refer to government structures or private structures?
MS. NIEVA: That would encompass both.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is clarified then.
Mention is made about the protection of the rights of the people which are
inalienable to human dignity. I have here the provision of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article XXII. I would like to read it for the
record. It says:
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is
entitled to realization through national effort and international cooperation
and
in accordance with the organization and resources of each state of the
economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality.
Does this have a relation to the proposed provision in some way?

MS. NIEVA: Definitely, I would think that it is a different expression of what
we are trying to say here.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. Again, Section 1 says redistribute
wealth and power for the common good. I asked earlier whether our main
objective
is the pursuit of national development or the common good because I think
there is a slight distinction when we say pursuit of national development or
pursuit of the common good. Which is really the main objective of the social
justice provision?
MS. NIEVA: I think in social justice, it is the common good that we are most
concerned with and, therefore, in the pursuit of national development
objectives, the common good should take primary consideration; social
justice should take primary consideration.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that clarification.
I would like to find out whether all the provisions on labor, agrarian and
natural resources reform, urban land reform and housing, health, women and
indigenous communities are aimed towards this goal under Section 1.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, that is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that, Madam President.
The second point I would like to call the Commissioners attention to are
basic concerns of several Commissioners when they interpellated the
Committee
members earlier. Regarding the concepts on social justice, we have
established conceptual determinations of social justice in our jurisprudence
regarding
the meaning of the same, and I would like to read this for the record because
Commissioner Padilla was not able to put this on record at the same time
when
he was the one interpellating.
In the case of Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726, says:
Social justice is neither communism nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of the social and
economic
forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively circular
conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of
the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the government of measures
calculated to insure economic stability of all the component elements of
society
through the maintenance of proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable or extraconstitutionally through the
exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the
time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
I think what is in the mind of many Commissioners is this: Is this principle or
meaning of social justice as enunciated in the case I cited, still
applicable in the present provision on social justice?
MS. NIEVA: I do not see any contradiction at all. think this is just a clearer
formulation of how we think social justice can be achieved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that, Madam President.
I think it solves a lot of problems.
I will also cite another case, Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration, 1984
Phil. 847. This refers to the rights guaranteed by social justice and it says:
Social justice does not champion the decision of property or equality of
economic status; what it and the Constitution do guarantee are equality of
opportunity, equality of political rights, equality before the law, equality
between values given and received, equitable sharing of the social and
material goods on the basis of efforts exerted in their production as applied
to metropolitan centers, especially in relation to housing problems. It is a
command to devise ways and means for the elimination of slums, shambles,
shacks and houses that are dilapidated, overcrowded, without ventilation,
light
and sanitation facilities and for the construction in their places of decent
dwellings for the poor and the destitute. Condemnation of blighted areas
bears
direct relation to public safety, health and/or morals and is legal.
My question is: Does this principle enunciated in the case cited apply to the
present configuration of the social justice provision?
MS. NIEVA: Definitely, we are grateful for the support of the provisions
through the cases the Gentleman has just cited.
Finally, I will cite another case, Samanilla vs. Cruz, CA-G.R. No. 598, decided
in 1947. The decision said in effect that social justice is not a license
to trample upon the rights of others. It says:
Charity and social justice cannot be properly resorted to to trample upon the
rights of others nor to shield illegal acts prejudicial to the rights of
property owners who, under the Constitution, are also entitled to protection.
In another case, Astudillo vs. Board of Directors of PHHC, L-28066,
September 22, 1976, the Supreme Court said:
The State is committed to promote social justice and to maintain adequate
social services in the field of housing, but the State solicitude for the
destitute and the have-nots does not mean that it should tolerate
usurpations of property, public or private.
Do these enunciations still apply in the present configuration of the social
justice provisions?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have stated that all of these provisions will be subject to
the due process of law; and the provisions of the Bill of Rights will
definitely be observed when we discuss the details of the implementation of
the various provisions. Congress will definitely take this into consideration,
while at the same time recognize the need of providing for the greater good
of the greater number.
MR. MAAMBONG: Forgive me for citing these principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court but these are basic ones which are clear.
I will go to another portion which speaks of genuine agrarian reform
program. This has been taken up by other interpellators, but I would like to
call the
attention of the Committee that the agrarian reform program, from my
notes, appears to have started way back in 1963.
On August 8, 1963, the Agricultural Land Reform Code or Republic Act 3844
was enacted. On September 10, 1971, Republic Acts 6389 and 6390, known
as the
Code of Agrarian Reforms, were passed. Finally, on October 21, 1972, P.D.
No. 2 was passed, emancipating the tenants from the bondage of the soil;
then
there was an agrarian reform decree, P.D. No. 27, which proclaimed the
whole country as a land reform area.
My question is: Are the principles enunciated in all these laws I cited
applicable to the present formulation of our social justice provision on
agrarian
reform?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: I do not see any conflicts; definitely the principles are applicable.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, if this provision on agrarian reform is
passed, it will not repeal these laws at all because the principles enunciated
are
the same.
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: They would just extend the scope but they will not repeal.
Section 10 also says that it regulates the ownership and use of urban land for
the common good. This phrase common good has been recurring in all the
provisions and I would like to call the attention of the Committee to this
citation. It says in the book of Taada and Fernando:
The principle asserts that the well-being and economic security of all the
people is the end and justice the means. It is a recognized fact, however,
that
social justice is not necessary for the well-being and economic security of the
higher-income groups because through their own efforts they can stand even
without governmental help.
When we say common good, do we, therefore, refer to those in the lowincome groups?
MS. NIEVA: I think we refer to the whole of society.
MR. MAAMBONG: The whole of society.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, to the whole, but we are focusing our attention to those who
have less because they have less opportunities and less voice.
MR. MAAMBONG: Regarding the portion on urban land reform, I would like to
call the attention of the Committee that we have several laws on urban land
reform. For the record, we have P.D. No. 1893, declaring the entire
Metropolitan Manila area as an urban land reform zone; P.D. No. 1517 (June
11, 1978)
which is the Urban Land Reform Decree; and P.D. No. 1640 (September 21,
1979) freezing the prices of land in Metropolitan Manila at current market

value.
My question will be the same as to other decrees on land reform: Could these
decrees stand under the present provision? I am referring to the land reform
decrees promulgated by President Marcos.
MS. NIEVA: We are upholding the principles, as we said; however, there were
implementing decrees that we felt did not do justice to the overall objective
of providing the poor with shelter.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, they stand until they are repealed or
amended?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, it seems so.
MR. MAAMBONG: My last point is: We have here a provision which mentions
housing program. Will this provision not amend, in any way, our provision on
contracts of lease, the Rent Control Law and the Anti- Squatting Law? Will
they not affect these laws because the provisions on lease are found
specifically in the new Civil Code, the Rent Control Law is covered by B.P. Blg.
25 (April 10, 1979) which was extended by P.D. No. 1912 and extended
further in the last Regular Batasang Pambansa by B.P. Blg. 867. We even
have P.D. No. 1642, freezing the rates of rental at P300 a month on
residential and
commercial buildings, houses, apartments and dwelling units in Metropolitan
Manila at current levels.
As the present provision, which the Committee is proposing, stands, I think
these laws which are general in nature might be affected because the
dwellers
will have the right to be consulted before they can be resettled.
MS. NIEVA: I think we are leaving the legislature to decide which of the laws
should be repealed or amended and which should stay.
MR. MAAMBONG: I see.
Will the provision on social justice not drastically affect the provisions of the
Civil Code alluded to by Commissioner Padilla? Commissioner Padilla was
thinking about the Civil Code provisions such as Article 428 the right to
enjoy, to dispose and to recover; Article 429 the right to exclude others
from the property, the right to enclose or fence property, the right to
compensation in case of eminent domain; Article 437 the right to surface,
subsurface or space above the land; Article 428 the right to hidden
treasure; Article 440 the right to accession; and Articles 476 to 481 the
right
to quiet title.
Will these Civil Code provisions not be affected by the social justice
provisions?
MR. SUAREZ: I suppose these are specific provisions under the Civil Code
that may be affected if there will be full implementation of the constitutional
provisions as they now appear. The reconciling factor will be the safety
clause in a manner as may be provided by law.
So, these possible conflicts between the Civil Code provisions governing
possession and ownership may have to be subordinated to the constitutional
provisions which the Commission is in a position to approve.
Of course, after that, legislation takes over; but any legislative measures that
would have to be adopted must be in line with the constitutional
provisions. But basically they will be respected.
There may be, like what was pointed out by the Honorable Regalado and the
Honorable Padilla regarding jus abutendi, jus ustendi and jus disponendi,
which
legal terms may not be understandable to many of us who are laymen
here . . . For example, in jus disponendi, this right to dispose of ones
properties may
be circumscribed because of the greater interest of the people for the
common good.
MR. MAAMBONG: That last reply specifically gives me some worry because
when rights granted to owners by some provisions in the Civil Code,
particularly
Articles 428, 429, 435, 437, et cetera, will be affected by the provisions on
social justice and these rights are not only in the law; they have been
enshrined by our jurisprudence that could give some sort of alarm unless
it could be explained in such a manner that the property owners will really be
assured that the due process clause of the Constitution will specifically
protect these rights which are now in the Civil Code.
But anyway, I leave that for Commissioner Padilla to comment on later. I am
not an expert in civil law.
MR. BENNAGEN: On behalf of the Committee, may I be allowed to speak.

There have been questions that relate to concepts regarding many of the
provisions and
the basic philosophy that underlies the provisions on social justice. We
discussed this rather thoroughly in the committee hearings including the one
that
was quoted extensively when the Committee Chairman, Commissioner
Nieva, asked that the title of the Article be transformed from Social Justice
and Services
to simply Social Justice.
I would like to repeat that because, in my view, it has guided the
deliberations of the Committee. This is also for the sake of the other
Commissioners who
had not participated in the deliberations of the Committee.
This is essentially the position of Atty. Diokno in his paper in Batas at
Katarungan, Volume I, No. 1, a publication of the UP Law Center, where he
dealt
with the concept of Filipino social justice. The concept incidentally is drawn
from his study of Philippine languages; for example, concepts such as
katarungan, batas at karapatan came from the revolutionary heritage as
articulated by Filipino revolutionaries, including Mabini, Jacinto and Bonifacio,
as
well as the insights of other scholars. Let me read:
Social justice for us Filipinos means a coherent, intelligible system of law
made known to us, enacted by a legitimate government freely chosen by us
and
enforced fairly and equitably by a courageous, honest, impartial and
competent police force, legal profession and judiciary that: First, respect our
rights
and our freedoms both as individuals and as a people; second, seek to repair
the injustices that society has inflicted on the poor by eliminating poverty
as our resources and our ingenuity permit; third, develop a self-directed and
self-sustaining economy that distributes its benefit to meet firstly, the
basic material needs of all, to provide an improving standard of living for all,
but particularly for the lower income groups, with enough time and space
to allow them to take part in and to enjoy our cultures; fourth, change
institutions and structures, our ways of doing things and relating to each
other so
that whatever inequalities remain are not caused by those institutions or
structures, unless inequality is needed temporarily to favor the least favored
among us and its cost is borne by the most favored; and, fifth, adopt means
and processes that are capable of attaining these objectives.
For those who want to go further into this, I suggest that they go through the
article in Batas at Katarungan. It is available at the UP Law Center.
Just a brief background on Section 1 where social justice is mentioned as a
social, economic, political, moral imperative in the pursuit of national
development:
The concept of national development as expressed in several national
development plans of the previous regime was developed around three
major objectives:
growth, equity and the preservation of our natural resources not only for the
present but also for future use.
In practice, however, development has been skewed in favor of growth, to
the extent that in cases where it happened, the gap between the rich and
the
poor widened. It is our feeling that at this stage, the State, as an agency of
change, can so order its resources as to favor the majority or the poor.
This is in violation of existing theories of the State where, one, the State is
assumed to be a neutral agency serving all classes. In the other
formulation usually identified with classical Marxism, the State is nothing
more than an alliance of dominant classes which, through the government,
becomes also the executive committee of these dominant classes. What we
are trying to say is that the Article on Social Justice will go against these
major
classical formulations on the nature of the State so that for once, following
certain traditions of Filipinos, perhaps we can develop a Filipino style
theory of the State that responds to the need of our historical conditions as
well as the structures of society today in favor of the poor. It is for this
reason that several provisions so mandate the State. But even as we
mandate the State, the people themselves should be drawn from their inertia
and
participate through the peoples organizations in providing the necessary
stimulus, the necessary impulse for the State to respond to the needs of the
greater majority or to the poor. But it does not mean that it should be at the
expense of the rich. Essentially, what we are saying is that the State, now
acting as an agency of the poor, should not do these against the interest of
the rich. We are merely saying that it should pay attention to the basic
inequities of society, so that society itself shall maintain and reproduce itself,
without necessarily going to those convulsions usually associated with
the historical traditions both in the West and in the Philippines. Time will test
the validity of this theory.
Having stated that, let me just go back to the concept of agrarian reform as
embodied in the Article. There have already been discussions as to the
reasons
for the failure of agrarian reform. Let me just refer to a survey of the
literature done by two American economists covering agrarian reforms both
in
ancient times and in modern societies in Europe, Latin America, North
America and in Asia, particularly, East Asia. In this survey of literature, they
claimed that the reasons for failure of agrarian reform are: 1) lack of
management capabilities; 2) apathy of government and sometimes even of
peasants
themselves; 3) inefficient or inadequate organization of complementary
resources and services this would refer to services like credit, irrigation,
technical inputs and others; and (4) lack of indigenous research and
development, and where research and development exist, insufficient
diffusion of its
results. These have to do essentially with making scientific the process of
agrarian reform. The studies point out that this is the single element lacking
in many of the agrarian reforms but which are present in successful agrarian
reforms. It was pointed out that eventually, the success of agrarian reform,
particularly the liquidation of feudalism, has taken place alongside with
industrialization, the expansion of markets as well as in the increase in
disposable income of the marginalized sectors. The study also shows that in
cases where feudalism has failed in increasing productivity as well as in
enhancing the egalitarian distribution of income, it is because it has taken
place within a wider framework of power and privilege. This has been the
case
in the Philippines for several years. This one should be interesting to us,
particularly to Congress which should see to it that indeed the appropriate
legislation for successful agrarian reform should be enacted.
Let me quote:
Successful agrarian reforms, both in Europe and East Asia, have been
characterized by economic growth, coupled with equitable distribution of
income. In
these cases, land is open to peasants, decisions over prices and products are
vested in the peasants, terms of trade are not manipulated through prices,
taxes or monopoly rent and last, peasants are not discriminated against in
the provisions of credit and technical inputs.
We are saying, therefore, that there are already extensive and
comprehensive studies on agrarian reform and we should profit from these.
Mention was made
of Taiwan, but I would imagine that there would be other models that could
be investigated. More importantly, it is for us to really go into the historical
and structural background of agrarian reform in the Philippines, and pay
attention to these particular conditions because as the literature itself says,
it
is difficult to draw generalizations from the comparative studies because it is
the particularities of that societys history and structure that define the
success of agrarian reform.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
I am a member of the Committee and, of course, I support the main thrust of
the Article on Social Justice but I did take the prudence to indicate that they
would have some reservations, especially in the matter of constitutional
language. But I think it is incumbent on the Commission to try to discover,
unravel and perhaps determine the significance and implications of a radical
proposal for the reorganization of our society in terms of, in particular, a
land reform program. I would like to assure that we cannot employ our time
more usefully than really to try to determine not only the merits and
soundness
of these proposals, but also the underlying intent of the Committee and of
the Commission, considering that millions of individual and family interests
are
involved, and considering the great passions that radical approaches to
social and economic relations based on land are capable of being generated.
There was in the 1 960s a major study, which I think no one has yet
mentioned, on the causes of poverty in Asia. It was called The Asian DramaAn Inquiry
into the Poverty of Nations by Gunnar Myrdal, probably the leading
institutional economist of our time. After three volumes of detailed studies,
especially
of the South Asian economic, social and political settings, he came to two
major conclusions: First, the reason Asia remains economically backward is
that
most of it are soft states. They did not have the political will, for example, to
enforce genuine civil equality. Under the Constitutions prevailing, the
rich and poor are equal before the law. But the public could not miss many
glaring evidences in their own lives of how, in real life, this principle of
genuine civil equality is mocked.
The second major conclusion was that these countries are arresting their
own growth by lacking the political will to introduce radical social reforms,
especially in land. Of course, he traced the long history of land reform effort
in Asia, including the Philippines and the other Southeast Asian nations,
and his dismal conclusion was that while professing to inaugurate a social
revolution through land reform, most of these governments in the region, in
actual fact, sought every means and every pretext to thwart genuine land
reform. Of course, all it took was for the National Assembly or the Parliament
to
deny funds to land reform in order to stifle it.
In this regard, we heard Commissioner Romulo raising the favorite bogy of
most governments in Southeast Asia against meaningful land reform there
is no
money. Yet, this morning, I saw in the business page of the Manila Bulletin
that P29 billion is being allocated under the 1986 budget to the so-called
GFIs, government financial institutions, primarily the PNB and the DBP. The
reason for this equity infusion is to prevent them from total collapse. Of
course, P29 billion is about 20 percent of the entire national budget, all of
which will disappear without a trace during the year 1986. These banks have
to be made viable, of course, but if one were weighing all these budgetary
allocations on a scale of justice and priority, I think this would dwarf the
entire budget of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministries of Health
and Education combined. But these are fait accompli to which the
government
must respond.
Government corporations in 1986 will absorb more taxpayers money than
we ever dreamt of spending for land reform or even for new school buildings
for our
children, especially in the distressed communities.
The point, therefore, is that it is possible the Philippines today has become
the economic laggard of its statute because we have not mustered the will to
transform social and economic relations based on land through a meaningful
land reform program.
That is the reason: It is in terms of our social relations that we can be
imprisoned in poverty It is practically choosy to remain stagnant
economically.
Later on, I hope the Committee will consider, from one of its own members,
an amendment on Section I which will link social justice to another jugular
value and goal; that is, economic growth. It is not only a case of dividing the
existing limited pie more equitably. It is through this that we can enlarge
the pie for the enjoyment of all our citizens, and I am referring in particular
to the land reform program. I think the money will come when there is the
political will to commit a whole nation to land reform. It is at this point that I
hope to get some elucidation from Commissioner Tadeo concerning Sections
5, 6 and 7. Of course, I hope to address a few minor questions to

Commissioner Aquino later on on the labor portion, and a question or two to
Commissioner
Garcia concerning Sections 19 and 20.
I think there is no question that we need a radical land reform, and by
radical I mean the original Latin sense of going down to the roots of the
problem. That is what I mean by radical social justice proposals because, in
fact, the land reform provision here goes to the roots of our social and
economic situation.
The old socialist condemnation of property was summed up by Pradeau in
France as property step. That was in the 19th century and, of course, later
on
this was elaborated into a slogan which is expropriate the expropriators in
the sense that property owners were the original expropriators, so, why
should they not be expropriated now? I do not think it is in that sense to
expropriate the expropriators that the land reform provision here is
intended. But when the Constitution directs the Congress to the effect that
the State shall encourage and undertake the distribution of all agricultural
lands, subject to limitations put by law especially on retention limits, does
this contemplate this question I address to the Committee and particularly
to Commissioner Tadeo a blanket approach to all agricultural lands so that
we do not distinguish between, let us say, the owners of Hacienda Luisita,
the
biggest plantation in Luzon with 6,000 hectares and this ordinary chap in
Laguna or Quezon who has only 10 hectares of coconut plantation? Sa inyo
bang
masid at wari ay masasagasaan ng land redistribution ang dalawang ito: ang
may-ari ng pinakamalaking hasyenda dito sa Luzon at isang hindi naman
mayaman ni
hindi mariwasa, pangkaraniwang tao lamang na nagmamay-ari ng isang
sukat ng lupang tinatamnan ng niyog na hindi hihigit sa sampung ektarya?
MR. TADEO: Pareho.
MR. OPLE: Therefore, we now have to talk about ultimate objectives in order
to shed light on the more immediate concerns. Is it the intention of the
Committee to dismantle all plantations in the Philippines regardless of crop,
differences in size, equity and history of tenurial terms and productivity?
MR. TADEO: Sakop ang mga plantasyon.
MR. OPLE: Buwagin ang lahat ng plantasyon upang maipamahagi sa mga
bumubungkal nito. Iyon po ba ang ating pangkalahatang layunin na nakatitik
dito sa ating
pinag-uusapang Article on Social Justice?
MR. TADEO: Sasakupin nito ang mga hasyenda at ang mga plantasyon
kagaya ng sinabi ng Ginoong sampung ektarya, subalit kung ang may-ari ng
lupa ay
owner-cultivator lamang, wala siyang mga kasama hindi ito masasakop. Kung
mayroon siyang mga kasamang farm workers, ang lupa ay masasakop.
Marahil ay dapat iwasan ang salitang buwag dahil ang pagpapatupad ng
agrarian reform ay dadaan pa sa Kongreso. Ang Kongreso ang magbibigay ng
mga
detalye.
MR. OPLE: I am not concerned about the big estates. I think we have
dismantled a lot of big estates since the time of Roxas, foremost of which
were the
friar lands. In January 1954, President Magsaysay made me chairman of the
first agrarian committee created under that government. I investigated the
Dinalupihan Land Estate in Bataan so that it could be redistributed to the
tenants there. I am not concerned about these big landed estates including
Canlubang, Hacienda Luisita, although probably later on, we should also take
them up. I am concerned about literally millions of small plantation owners in
the coconut industry and sugar industry as well. Is it the intention that
wherever there are tenants, the land should be broken up and distributed to
the
tenants? Is that a correct assumption?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Alam natin na sa industriya ng asukal, iba ang Luzon sa Bisayas.
Dito sa Luzon ang umiiral ay tenancy. Sa Bisayas, lalo na sa Region VI, ang
umiiral ay labor-management relations. Baka naman kung ang patakaran ay
batay sa kung mayroong tenant o wala, lahat ng plantasyon ng asukal sa
Luzon ay
masasakop ng land reform; ang Bisayas hanggang Mindanao ay ligtas sa
land reform. Gusto ko lamang na pag-aralan natin iyan sa kalaunan, at gusto
ko ring
itanong kung kasama rito ang mga palaisdaan. Kaming dalawa ni
Commissioner Tadeo ay galing sa isang lalawigang ang hanapbuhay ng
karamihan ay sa
baybay-dagat nagmumula, sa palaisdaan. Alam ni Kasamang Tadeo na ang
inyong lingkod ay lumaking isang mangingisda at magsasaka. Maaari bang
malaman kung
kasama ang palaisdaan?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.

MR. TADEO: Siguro makabubuting i-define natin ang agricultural land batay
sa principles of agrarian reform cooperatives and taxation sa pahina 121 ng
aklat
ni Commissioner Nolledo:
Agricultural land means land devoted to any growth including but not limited
to crop lands, saltbeds, fishpond, idle land and abandoned land.
MR. OPLE: Tungkol sa mga palaisdaan, alam naman ni Kapatid na Tadeo kung
anong uri ang pamamahala sa palaisdaan mayroon diyang isa o dalawang
bantay. Sa
karamihan ng pangyayari ay hindi lamang sila hindi binabayaran, kundi hindi
pa kasama sa tinutubo. Ano ngayon ang magiging epekto nitong Saligang
Batas
lalo na kung ang Sections 5 at 8 ay isasaalang-alang sa kanilang kaugnayan?
Ano ang ibig sabihin ng genuine land reform para sa mga nagtatrabaho sa
palaisdaan?
MR. TADEO: Sa palagay ko ay bahala na ang Kongreso kung paano
ipatutupad ang agrarian reform o aquatic reform.
MR. OPLE: Datapuwat sa akala ng Ginoo, ang mga palaisdaan ay tiyak na
sakop o saklaw ng itinatadhana dito sa Sections 5 and 8?
MR. TADEO: Kasama po ito.
MR. OPLE: Salamat po.
Ngayon, gusto kong dumako sa Section 7 na nagsasabing:
concession, subject to prior rights of original inhabitants and without
violating the homestead rights of small settlers and the rights of indigenous
communities to their ancestral lands.
This section has no provision concerning existing rights, earned rights,
contractual rights and vested rights. We are talking of the public domain here
and
mainly lease or concession. To what extent will these be stopped, let us say,
existing leases on forestry, because we know that timber concessions have
just been parceled up all over the country. These are held to be existing
rights since there is no provision in Section 7 except for the prior rights of
the original inhabitants. Does this mean that the security of tenure of the
holders of these leases, which can number by the thousands, operating the
timber industry right now, will be disturbed under Section 7? Maaaring
bawiin ang lisensiya. Kung sabagay, si Ginoong Maceda lamang ang kayang
magbawi ng
lisensiya; it is an administrative power; it is an executive authority. But is that
what is intended in Section 7?
MR. TADEO: Uulitin ko ang definition na ibinigay ni Mahar Mangahas tungkol
sa full natural resource coverage:
In principle, the term lands would include all forms of natural. resources,
including mineral, forests and water resources, whether public or private,
whether titled or untitled, whether presently controlled by Filipinos or nonFilipinos, over which there is social conflict induced by an unjust
distribution.
MR. OPLE: So, the timber concessions are included.
Speaking of land in general and we know that the Philippines has been
under a Torrens title system for the better part of a century since the start of
the American regime, while Taiwan opted for a Torrens title system only after
World War II will this whole infrastructure of land rights represented by
the Torrens title system be made insecure by a general mandate of the
Congress to redistribute all agricultural lands, except I suppose where
residences
stand on these lands, and where commercial and industrial improvements
have been established thereon? All the rest may be presumed to be subject
to
redistribution provided there is fair and progressive compensation regardless
of crop. Will this be correct?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
I think I will put this question again to the Committee at a convenient time so
that it may present a more balanced answer because the Torrens title system
underpins the entire system of private property in the Philippines based on
land. Many people would be concerned, if the Committee admits that this will
be
the start on a wholesale basis by this proposed Article on Social Justice.
I think the other question to ask is: Will all these earned rights, contractual
rights, vested rights in land, in effect, in the ultimate stage be
nullified by our land reform proposal? Or do we merely contemplate a
situation where the Torrens title will be transferred to new owners?
MR. TADEO: Yes.

With respect to just a few enormous landed estates, I have already given
examples: Hacienda Luisita, the biggest in Luzon, with 6,000 hectares of rice
and
corn land and sugar land and with 6,000 tenants and workers; the Canlubang
Sugar Estate, just across the city in Laguna; and in the West Visayas alone
with
about 30,000 sugar planters or hacenderos the aggregate for the nation
escapes me for the moment. In the ultimate stage of the land reform
program as now
envisioned, will all of these estates be redistributed to their tenants, and if
they have no tenants to whom will they be redistributed?
MR. TADEO: The principle is agrarian land for the tillers and land for the
landless. Ngunit inaasahang magkakaroon ng problema sa tatlo hanggang
apat na
milyong landless agricultural workers sa implementasyon ng tunay na
agrarian reform. Gaya ng sinabi ko kahapon, mayroong 605,000 kaingineros.
Ayon sa
kapatid ni Fr. Bernas na dumalo sa isang committee hearing natin, kung
magpapatuloy sila sa pagkakaingin, magiging disyerto tayo; magkakaroon ng
baha sa
panahon ng tag-ulan at pagkatuyo sa panahon ng tag-araw. Saan natin
dadalhin ang 605,000 na kaingineros na ito? Kaya kailangan talagang
mapasama dito ang
iba pang natural resources upang itong tatlo hanggang apat na milyong,
landless agricultural workers ay magkaroon ng lupang sasakahin.
MR. OPLE: Tama po iyan, at kung maaalaala ni Kapatid na Tadeo, ipinagunita
ko sa kanya na mayroong 1.2 million hectares of cultivable land considered
alienable and disposable na nilagom noong nakaraang pamahalaan upang
mauwi sa isang tinatawag na land assembly trust at inilagay sa Makati Stock
Exchange
to liquify these natural resources. There was no response from the business
community. Recently I read that President Aquino, on behalf of the
government,
had repossessed these alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
One-and-one-fifth million hectares already identified and segregated by the
Ministry of Natural Resources all over the country will be a great warehouse
of hope if these can be redistributed to the tenants and the kaingineros. I
think it could be very reassuring for those who are now negotiating with the
National Democratic Front on behalf of the government that they can
promise
1.2 million hectares of land already previously assembled and which are now
at the disposal of the government. Sa public domain, hindi tayo gaanong
mahihirapan sapagkat kung ang gobyerno ang may-ari, mas malaya at
walang sakit ng kaloobang maipagkakaloob ang mga lupa sa mga
nangangailangan. Ang higit
na magdudulot sa atin ng problema, sa aking palagay, ay ang tinatawag na
private agricultural lands.
Tungkol sa Section 9 na nagsasabing: The State shall promote the
integrated development of agricultural, fishing and marine resources, hindi
po ba ang
ibig sabihin ng integrated development of agricultural resources ay katulad
ng ginawang integrated development ni Ambassador Eduardo Cojuangco, na
mula sa
binhi ng niyog hanggang sa ito ay gilingin at maging coconut oil, hanggang
sa bangkong pagdaraanan? Iyon po ba kaya ang kahulugan na ating ikakapit
sa
integrated development of agricultural fishing and marine resources, a kind
of UNICOM, UCPB, COCOFED approach?
MR. TADEO: Puwede sigurong sagutin natin ng ganito: Ang Cojuangcong ito
ay magiging mga magbubukid na magmamay-ari mula sa hilaw na sangkap
hanggang sa
finished product.
MR. OPLE: Mula sa binhi, sa bugsok hanggang sa organisasyon ng COCOFED,
UCPB at doon sa dakong itaas, itong coconut oil mill at saka UNICHEM.
MR. BENNAGEN: On behalf of the Committee, may I respond to that very
briefly because I was part of the move which formulated that. When we
speak of
integration, we speak of one integration within each sector, for instance,
within agriculture itself. We also speak of integration among the various
components of agriculture, marine and other resources, and the way they
should be related to the overall industrialization thrust of the country. We are
saying that we cannot simply rely on agrarian reform in terms of attaining
the overall objectives of gross and equity, and that the agrarian reform
program
should be integrated, should be linked in appropriate ways with
industrialization of the country, the form of which shall, of course, be
determined in due
time.
MR. OPLE: It is really saying that land reform beneficiaries can, at a certain
stage, federate to enjoy economies of scale through integration.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. OPLE: The State now pays for the land that is to be redistributed under a
fair and progressive compensation system; will the State ever recover this
money of the taxpayers?
Bibigyan ba natin ng pananagutan ang mga magsasaka na siyang
magtatamo at magtatamasa ng lupa na magbayad naman sa gobyerno ng
ibinayad ng gobyerno para sa
lupang ito?
MS. NIEVA: When the Committee was discussing this, we did not mean to say
that the beneficiaries would just be receiving these lands as doleouts. But
where
they are capable, they also have to pay back on amortization for cumulative
years.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, mukhang hindi iyan ang nakita kong nakatitik
sa programa ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas. Isa sa kanilang mga
kahilingan
ngayon ay tapusin na ang pagbabayad ng amortization sapagkat hindi na
kaya ng magsasaka, lalo na ang presyo ng mga pesticide at pataba. Sa
kabila ng
pagbagsak ng presyo ng langis ay patuloy pa rin ang pagtaas ng presyo ng
mga inputs ng mga maliliit na magsasaka.
So, one of the demands is to stop the payments because after all, this land
belongs to them.
Ano kaya ang masasabi ng Kapatid na Tadeo tungkol dito?
MR. TADEO: Magkakaroon ng fair and progressive system of compensation.
Priorities should be given to small and medium-size landholdings without
adding to
the burden of the beneficiaries. The compensation package should be
improved at ang mga maliliit na panginoong may lupa should be paid
promptly. Kung ang
dating pagbabayad natin noon sa ilalim ng P.D. No. 27 or Republic Act 3844
ay 10 percent cash at 90 percent bond, maaaring baliktarin natin ito upang
maging 90 percent cash at 10 percent bond para sa mga maliliit na
panginoong may lupa.
MR. OPLE: I am calling for a separate policy for the small landowners to be
placed under land reform and the bigger landowners.
Sa ngayon ang bayad ng Land Bank sa ilalim ng batas ay 90 percent Land
Bank bond at 10 percent cash. Dati ay tinatanggap ng PNB at DBP bilang
kolateral o
pambayad ng mga existing arrears ang 90 percent bond ng Land Bank;
ngayon ay ayaw na nila itong tanggapin. Samakatuwid lumilitaw na sa papel
lamang itong
90 percent bond; it has no negotiability now. Kung babayaran ng
pamahalaan ang Hacienda Luisita, malaki-laki ito. Remember that its
acquisition cost about
30 years ago was only P9 million so it will now cost hundreds of millions of
pesos. Paano ngayon ang pagbabayad sa gobyerno? Hindi na makababawi
ang
gobyerno sapagkat naipamahagi na ang lupa sa mga magsasaka
MR. TADEO: Ang talagang layunin ng bonds ay upang bumili ng stock o share
sa isang korporasyon. Ito ay maaaring i-convert sa cash at magagamit ito
kung
magtatayo ng mga industriya na kakailanganin ng ating bansa. Ito ang
sinasabi namin noon na ang natutulog na kapital sa lupa ay dapat magamit
sa
pagpapaunlad ng industriya. Kaya kung ito ay susuportahan ng pamahalaan,
hindi natin kakailanganin ang foreign loan, foreign aid, and foreign
investment.
Ang unang kailangang gawin natin ay bigyan ng purchasing power o lagyan
ng laman ang bulsa ng 35 hanggang 40 milyong magbubukid. Sa pag-unlad
ng domestic
sector ay uunlad ang industriya kasabay ng genuine agrarian reform.
MR. OPLE: Totoo po ang sinabi ng Ginoo. In the case of Taiwan, in the early
1950s, two billion nationalist Taiwan dollars was released by land reform so
that this capital, otherwise locked in the land, was now liberated to become a
fuel for the industrialization of Taiwan. But the vehicles for investments,
government corporations whole shares of stock, are available to the landowner who has been placed under land reform. All these corporations were
making
huge revenues and profits. So, we might say that the sequestered landowners felt very happy about receiving bonds and shares of stock in
corporations that
were profitable. Many of these landowners became richer through land
reform, after supposedly having been impoverished. But in this country, I
hope the
Gentleman can point to a single government corporation whose stocks will
be coveted by the landowners who will lose their lands as a result of land
reform.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the Gentleman but before I
leave this podium, I have to put a question or two to the Committee
concerning the
labor provisions. I refer to Section 4 which states:
The State shall guarantee the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted activities for their
own protection, welfare and mutual aid, including the right to strike. It shall
also guarantee job security, just and humane conditions of work and
participation in policy and decision-making affecting their rights and benefits.
I see that the option of the State to use compulsory arbitration has been
dropped for the first time since 1935. The provision for compulsory
arbitration
appears in exactly the same form in both the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions The State may provide for compulsory arbitration. Since
Section 4 now
proposes voluntary modes of dispute settlements and compels attention for
having eliminated a familiar provision in both the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions, what conclusion should arise from this is that, in the opinion of
the proponent, all disputes should now be settled through voluntary mode,
and the State is deprived of the power of compulsory arbitration. Does this
mean the abolition of the National Labor Relations Commission?
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Florenz
D. Regalado.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May I be allowed to answer that question in behalf of the
Committee. The express proviso on compulsory arbitration is in the General
Provisions
of the 1935 Constitution. At best, it was adopted in the Industrial Peace Act,
Republic Act 875, which provided for compulsory arbitration pertaining to
the Court of Industrial Relations on matters which involve unfair labor
practices and strikes which are certified by the President to involve national
interest. However, the 1973 Constitution provided for an express designation
of compulsory arbitration in the Declaration of Principles. When the
Committee
dropped that express proviso without intending to exclude the right of the
State, by a statutory implementation, to provide for acceptable norms of

compulsory arbitration whenever they are warranted by the situation, the
Committee is very well aware that the exclusive use of free collective
bargaining
as a mode of settlement of labor disputes is ideal only in highly industrialized
countries. But a developing country such as the Philippines where the
framework of labor-management relations is very fragile does not have the
systemic stability to withstand prolonged work stoppages. Such that in the
context of this recognition, we would yield to the requirement of a
developing country to accommodate modalities of compulsory arbitration.
MR. OPLE: I am very glad to hear that, Mr. Presiding Officer. That is very
reassuring because there are indeed times in history when, even by
implication,
the State should not be prevented from taking steps to reestablish peace
especially where strategic installations and facilities of a nation are at stake.
I imagine that if there is a simultaneous strike of the MERALCO and the PLDT,
there must be something in the law that will enable the State to act on
behalf of the general welfare. So, that is not precluded at all.
MS. AQUINO: May I just be allowed to underscore the intention behind the
dropping of the provision on compulsory arbitration. It is just a reiteration of
a
genuine and firm commitment of the State to encourage and reinforce free
collective bargaining methods and voluntary methods of settlement of labor
disputes. However, as a colatilla, for purposes of record, the reservation for
compulsory arbitration should lie only as a last resort when the free
collective modes and the voluntary modes shall have been exhausted and
shall have been proven unavailing in settling labor disputes.
MR. OPLE: I certainly agree with that. Concerning the right to strike, that is
made explicit here. The right to strike and the right to lock out generally
go together. Is it the Committees impression that the phrase including the
right to strike also provides for the right to lock out even if it is not
here?
MS. AQUINO: In cases provided for by law, yes.
MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think Commissioner Lerum, a member of
the Committee, would also like to comment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: May I comment on the so-called right to lock out? There is no
such right to lock out. There is nothing in our Constitution that gives
management
the right to lock out. Under the present Constitution, what is recognized is
the right of workers to security of tenure but there is no provision
recognizing the right of any employer to lock out its employees because this
is against the right of the workers to security of tenure.
MR. OPLE: I am speaking of the general practice the world over.
MR. LERUM: But that is not so in the Philippines It may be true in other
countries but in the Philippines, there is no such right.
MR. OPLE: Does the Gentleman mean that the right to lock out is denied to
the employers but the right to strike may not be abridged for the workers? Is
that how Commissioner Lerum stands on this question?
MR. LERUM: The question is whether the right to lock out . . .
MR. OPLE: Employers have no right to lock out even where there is a right to
strike by the workers?
MR. LERUM: Yes, that is how the present Constitution reads. I am referring to
the present, not to this proposed Constitution that we are discussing today.
Because the moment we recognize the right of the workers to security of
tenure, that means they cannot be locked out.
MR. OPLE: I do not know what the Supreme Court may have said about that
but it is generally true that there is a symmetry of final actions in collective
bargaining acknowledged throughout the world and that is the right to strike
and the right to lock out because without arbitration we are back to a trial
of strength between the parties in the picket line and that is what American
collective bargaining is all about that there is finally a trial of
strength. Naked economic coercion will determine the outcome of the
contest and that is the reason I feel reassured about the statement of the
Committee,
through Commissioner Aquino, that with this provision in Section 4, we do
not really forego the instrument of compulsory arbitration provided it is a last
resort Strikes and lockouts have to be acts of last resort and perhaps at the
proper time, I can propose a minor amendment just to take care of that
contingency. May I ask the Committee whether in terms of the voluntary
modes of dispute settlement and the primacy given to collective bargaining,
the
State may not now enact a minimum wage law to fix minimum wages,
whether nationally or by industry, because that is State intervention and
perhaps State
coercion? It is noteworthy in this respect that recently, both the NEDA and
the Ministry of Labor and the President have said that they were no longer
going to abide by a minimum wage system which is very important
especially for the unorganized workers because they prefer labor and
management to settle
the terms and conditions of work. Is there anything in this provision, Section
4, that precludes Congress in the future from enacting new minimum wage
laws?
MR. LERUM: May I answer that. There is nothing in this proposed Constitution
that will prohibit the government from fixing wages or from fixing a minimum
wage.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer. I think I have used
more than my first share of the time. Thank you very much for giving me the
floor.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I wonder if Commissioner Ople would yield to just a few
questions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Ople may reply.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mention was made of political will, of political commitment
as a sine qua non of a genuine agrarian reform and all the other reforms that
are
suggested in the Article on Social Justice. I am constrained to ask this
question on the assumption that since he has seceded from the Kilusang
Bagong
Lipunan, he has acquired some objective distance from the Marcos years to
be able to provide us some object or moral lesson in the study of political
commitment or political will. As an insider, could the Gentleman share with
us some of the limitations of the concentrated power of the Marcos years
that
prevented the successful implementation of agrarian reform?
MR. OPLE: I participated in agrarian reform planning during that period and I
think P.D. No. 27 did achieve a sort of transformation in the lives of those
that benefited from it. We have in this Commission colleagues who lost their
lands to their own tenants as a result of P.D. No. 27. Commissioner Bengzon
lost the family land in Pangasinan; Commissioner Rodrigo lost the family land
in Bulacan. It was a painful and traumatic experience for many Filipino
landowners. And I think that program should have been extended beyond
rice and corn to other crops.
But at that point, the government really ran into a solid wall of resistance. All
the politicians served notice that they would rebel politically if
coconut and sugar lands were touched. So, notwithstanding what I thought
were the mighty efforts that Minister Estrella and I, together with
Montemayor,
Lerum, Taruc and others, exerted to extend P.D. No. 27 to other crops,
politically the President at that time thought that the cost was unaffordable.
That
was the reason why the agrarian reform program got stuck on rice and corn
and could not move beyond the metes and bounds of these two crops.
I think one reason we have a more exciting proposal here in the Article on
Social Justice is that land reform will become all-encompassing, although the
specific approaches and modalities within all kinds of agricultural lands will
be left to Congress to determine. But no piece of agricultural land may be
considered exempt after we approve the pertinent sections of this Article on
Social Justice.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
I seek clarification on certain points from the Committee. On interpellation by
Commissioner Maambong, the Committee answered that the doctrine laid
down
by the Supreme Court in the following cases: Calalang vs. Williams, Guido vs.
Rural Progress Administration, Samanilla vs. Cruz, Astudillo vs. Board of
Directors of PHHC decided in 1976 had been taken into account and the
provisions on social justice would be deemed to have actually taken into
account the
said doctrine of the Supreme Court in these cases. Is my impression correct?
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, in the application and interpretation of this
proposed Article on Social Justice, the said doctrines I mentioned in the cases
I
enumerated would remain valid and subsisting and are not deemed
modified, repealed, or superseded in any way?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we understand that until Congress shall decide otherwise.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, in the interpretation and application of this
proposed Article on Social Justice, the doctrines laid down by the Supreme
Courts
as such shall prevail.
MR. DAVIDE: In the proposed Section 1, I would like to invite the attention of
the Committee on the concept of promotion of structures and processes. For
the record, we would like to know what these structures and processes are,
or what are included in these structures and processes?
MS. NIEVA: May we ask Commissioner Garcia.
MR. GARCIA: When we speak of structures and processes which deliver social
justice to the people, we speak of both economic and social, and political
structures of a given society which provide equality of opportunity. These
structures provide. for example, in the area of housing, decent shelter to the
majority of its inhabitants: or work for the great majority of the people in a
given society.
MR. DAVIDE: In concrete terms, what are these?
MR. GARCIA: Basically in a given structure, for example, housing, it is the
ability of a given society to provide shelter for the majority of its people.
In concrete terms, it means the housing services given to community in a
determined place.
MR. DAVIDE: On the matter of processes, could we be enlightened on what
these processes are and what are excluded from these processes?
MR. GARCIA: Basically the processes which are referred to in a given society
are those of participation and consultation, mechanisms whereby popular
consultation is afforded so that people become part of decision mechanism,
giving them a say in decisions which affect their lives.
MR. DAVIDE: And included, therefore, are initiative and referendum?
MR. GARCIA: Initiative, referendums and even elections.
MR. DAVIDE: This includes their participation, for instance, in the legislative
body through the party list system or sectoral representation.
MR. GARCIA: These are different mechanisms within the proper legislative
structures, or there can be extra legal processes whereby the people can
participate, through their own freedom to organize and demonstrate the
consultation and mechanism in the different Ministries, the Office of the
President
and in the public hearings that the legislature provides so that they can give
their ideas. These are the processes envisioned to shape the direction of
that societys future.
MR. DAVIDE: Definitely then, in the interpretation/application of the Article on
Social Justice, everything must be within the framework of democratic
processes.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, within the framework of democratic exercise and also of a
just and humane society. That is the ultimate.
MR. DAVIDE: Is it within the context of the concept of a just and humane
society as embodied in the Preamble, and nothing more?
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to invite the attention of the Committee to Section 5
which provides that lands are to be distributed to farmers and farm workers.
Are landless farmers and farm workers the beneficiaries under Section 5,
meaning, farmers who do not originally have lands of their own, and farm
workers
who do not have lands of their own?
MS. NIEVA: I think the section refers to the lands which farmers till.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but could the particular farmer tilling a land which does not
belong to him, and who has a land of his own, still be allowed? For
instance, I am a farmer with five hectares of land exclusively belonging to
me, but I am working on the farm of another. Would that owner of the land I
am
working on be under obligation to give in payment of just compensation the
very parcel or portion cultivated by me because I am the farmer? Such that if
I
am working on two hectares of the property of B, but I have my own six
hectares, will I eventually own a total of eight hectares?
MR. TADEO: Kung mayroong five hectares si Commissioner Davide at ownercultivator pa siya, pagkatapos gumagawa siya sa iba, batay iyan sa needs
and
capacity.
MR. DAVIDE: But I can afford to cultivate 10 hectares. I already own six
hectares and I still work on the land of another.
MR TADEO: Dahilan sa just distribution, ang unang bibigyan ng prioridad ay
iyong maliit ang lupang sinasaka at walang sinasaka. Kung ang sinasaka ng
Ginoong limang ektarya ay sapat na sa kanyang pangangailangan.
mawawalan na siya ng karapatan doon sa isang lupain at itoy ipagkakaloob
sa maliliit ang
mga lupang sinasaka.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it is now very clear that the intention is to give priority to
the landless farmers. Would that be the same interpretation insofar as farm
workers and seasonal workers are concerned? For instance, I am a farmer
with two hectares of land, but off-season in my land, I can work on the land
of
another. Would I be entitled to that portion of the property of another which I
am working on?
MR. TADEO: Kung wala kayong sinasakang dalawang ektarya.
MR. DAVIDE: But I have my own two hectares.
MR. TADEO: Does the Commissioner own the two hectares?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but off-season in my farm, I work on the farm of another.
MR. TADEO: Kung ang dalawang ektarya ay hindi makasasapat sa inyong
pangangailangan may karapatan kayo doon sa kabila.
MR. DAVIDE: Who shall determine whether what I own is enough or not
enough for me?
MR. TADEO: Dapat tayong magkaroon muna ng mga batayan tulad ng RA
3844. Makikita rito na ang tatlong ektaryang irrigated ay kayang
magtaguyod ng pamilyang
mayroong lima o anim na miyembro. Maaaring maging batayan ang mga
batas na ito.
MR. DAVIDE: I will give a very concrete example. I have a one-hectare land.
My neighbor has another one hectare. I planted corn on my land and I have
to
wait for about three months before I could harvest the corn. While awaiting
the harvest of my corn, I will work on the land of my neighbor; I work about
half a hectare of his one-hectare land. Would I be entitled to that one-half?
MR. TADEO: Gaya ng sinabi ko, kung ang sinasaka ninyo ay hindi
makasasapat at gumagawa pa kayo sa iba, maaari kayong magkaroon ng
karapatan doon.
MR. DAVIDE: I see. In that particular case, my neighbor would lose one-half
and I will have all in all one and a-half. That could be the effect.
MR. TADEO: Ang may-ari ba ng sinasaka ninyong lupa ay magbubukid o
nakikigawa lamang?
MR. DAVIDE: My neighbor is also a farmer.
MR. TADEO: Kung magbubukid lamang ay hindi. Akala ko po ay panginoon
siya at may lupa.
MR. DAVIDE: He can be the landlord because he allows people to work on his
land because he is already infirm for instance, he is disabled. So, he
cannot
work on the land.
MR. TADEO: It shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessee to contract or work
on additional landholding belonging to a different agricultural lessor.
Akala ko kasi kangina ay iyong panginoong may lupa.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, all laws affecting land reform now or agrarian
land reform shall remain valid and in force. Is it also the sense of the
Committee that upon the effectivity of this Constitution, the land reform or
agrarian reform program will be governed by existing laws?
MR. TADEO: What are proposed in this draft Article will still have to be refined
and improved.
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think the Gentleman is asking whether existing laws shall,
upon the ratification of this Constitution, be applied with respect to agrarian
reform.
MA. DAVIDE: The Committee said that they will remain in force.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.

MR. BENNAGEN: Of course, we always have that general provision saying
that all those not consistent with the new Constitution shall be nullified. But I
think there was a proposal submitted to the Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions saying that an agrarian reform code shall be formulated
in
consultation with affected sectors.
MR. DAVIDE: The Commissioner said that existing laws on land reform which
are not inconsistent with these shall be considered valid, but those which are
inconsistent will necessarily be deemed repealed. May we know what are the
existing agrarian laws?
MR. BENNAGEN: I am operating only from that general principle. I have not
gone into an inventory of laws.
MR. DAVIDE: At the end of line 26, page 2, we find the qualification
independent farmers organizations. What exactly does the Committee
mean by farmers
organizations? By qualifying the farmers organizations as independent, it
would necessarily follow that there are farmers organizations which are not
independent. So, for the moment may we know what are the independent
farmers organizations and what are the nonindependent farmers
organizations?
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: When we formulated that, we had in mind the experiences
during the Marcos years where peasant organizations themselves were
manipulated by
the regime, or that the government itself created its own organizations. We
feel, and I think this is also consistent with the ILO Convention 141 to which
the Philippine government is a signatory, that farmers organizations or
peasant organizations should be independent of the government so that they
can
develop their own programs. We are also saying that even as they are
independent organizations, they also deserve support from the government.
My analogy
during the deliberation was something like an autonomous university that
can develop its own curricular programs but would accept support from the
State.
MR. DAVIDE: I am glad that the Gentleman has enlightened us on that

matter. Does the Committee admit that even nonindependent farmers
organizations are
entitled to support?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: If nonindependent organizations of farmers are similarly entitled
to support, why did the Committee still qualify the farmers organizations as
only those which are independent?
MR. BENNAGEN: I think there is an important underlying principle here, in a
sense that farmers organizations, like other peoples organizations, should
establish some distance from any regime, so that they will be able to be
more critical of the regime without necessarily . . .
MR. DAVIDE: Does the Commissioner mean the government?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: But how can they establish distance from the government when
they are supposed to receive aid and support from the government? Should
they not
work for their mutual benefit?
MR. BENNAGEN: That is really the idea, but what we are saying here in terms
of independence is relative independence. The organization is not dictated
upon
by the government in terms of its developmental thrust and its programs but
it could participate in a process of consultation which is mutually beneficial
to the independent organization and to the government, as well.
MR. DAVIDE: So, the qualification of independent is still necessary insofar
as the Committee is concerned?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: But the Committee just answered a while ago that even those
members of nonindependent organizations are entitled to support and
assistance. To
what degree will the support and assistance to non-independent
organizations be then?
MR. BENNAGEN: I really have no idea, but we are saying here that
independence is crucial not so much in terms of being deprived of support,
but in terms of
the organizations capability to develop its own programs of action.
MR. DAVIDE: But this particular section relates precisely to the support and
assistance by the government.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: If we have to qualify and distinguish between members of
independent farmers organizations and members of nonindependent
farmers
organizations, we are practically creating a class struggle between two kinds
of farmers organizations, and that is inconsistent with the thrust of social
justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, not necessarily, because I would imagine that there will
be other organizations which are sponsored by the State such as officially
sponsored cooperatives which are not formally independent. I think the
distinction is crucial in the sense that we should have organizations which
are
formally independent of the government.
MR. DAVIDE: I see. What is really bugging me is the application of the
principle of agrarian reform in the disposition of other natural resources. I
wonder
if the Committee has defined natural resources in the manner that the term
is defined in the present Constitution I am referring to Section 8, Article
XIV of the 1973 Constitution:
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other
natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State.
I think this is really the concept of natural resources. Is this the meaning of
other natural resources outside of agricultural lands as cited in Section
7 of the draft Article?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have defined this as forest and pasture concessions, like
those especially parceled out to cronies and occupied by cultural minorities.
We have lands of the public domain . . .
MR. DAVIDE: What is really the extent of the term other natural resources?
Under Section 8 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, natural resources
refer to:
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife . . .
MR. TADEO: Ang ibig sabihin dito ay ang mga arable lands na maaaring
sakahin. Ngayon, itong mga coal, petroleum, mineral oils, under the regalian
doctrine, ay pag-aari ng Estado. Pero mayroong mga bagay sa natural
resources na naaangkop lamang para sa agriculture.
MR. DAVIDE: So, these can be classified as agricultural lands.
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, the use of the words and other natural
resources is really meaningless because the phrase actually refers to
agricultural
lands.
MS. NIEVA: In addition to that, we are referring to such areas as forest and
pasture concessions, especially those occupied by cultural communities.
MR. DAVIDE: I understand that the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony, in its report, allows grants by way of leases or concessions to
private
corporations or to individuals. In the latter case, the grants are given to
Filipino citizens and, in the former, to corporations, sixty percent of whose
capital is owned by Filipino citizens.
Now, my question is, under that particular proposal of the Committee, and as
provided in the 1973 Constitution, will these grants be in the nature of
leases or concessions, and therefore the ownership remains with the
government or the State? Under this proposal, once a certain area is leased
to a
corporation or to an individual and this particular corporation will now hire
certain individuals to work in the concession or leased area, they can now
acquire ownership over the area which they are tilling or cultivating. Is that
the intention of the Committee?
MR. TADEO: In principle, the term lands should include all forms of natural
resources, such as minerals, forest and water resources, whether public or
private, whether titled or untitled, whether presently controlled by Filipinos or
non-Filipinos, over which there is social conflict induced by an unjust
distribution.
MR. DAVIDE: What exactly does the Gentleman mean by a social conflict in
an area covered by a concession or a lease? Necessarily, I would suppose
that the
conflict is between the workers in this area under concession or under lease,
and the concessionaire.
MS. NIEVA: Not necessarily. Like in the case of CELLOPHIL in Abra, it was the
minority group of Tingians which was most affected. The group was not
necessarily the workers at that area but they were residents there.
MR. DAVIDE: But does not Commissioner Bennagen believe that if there is
the necessity of protecting the interests of these cultural communities, the
rule
should be in the Article on the National Economy, that no leases shall be
granted over lands where there is a claim for ancestral homes or ancestral
domains by the tribal groups? This is not really the proper subject of agrarian
reform; otherwise, if we apply the principle of agrarian reform, this means
that workers in the concession will be entitled to obtain that particular
portion which they are working on. It may be a lease for grazing purposes, so
there are some hired hands.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that. The idea with respect to the situation
cited is that the workers could be present in the area, could work on the land,
without necessarily acquiring personal, private titles to this land.
MR. DAVIDE: Without necessarily . . .?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, it could be stewardship.
MR. DAVIDE: So, the mandate under Section 7 which says:
concession,
simply means that lands covered by concession or lease cannot really be
given to those who are working there because it would precisely violate the
egalitarian doctrine.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, but we are also saying that complementary structures
which allow the development of these areas for the benefit of those who are
working
should be set up. The situation is that, even if these areas are being worked
on by those staying in the land, the kaingineros, for example, the objectives
of growth and equity are not attained without the complementary structures.
That is the reason mention is made of the application of the agrarian
principles.
MR. DAVIDE: My question on urban land reform and housing refers to line 20
which provides decent housing at affordable cost to deserving low-income
citizens. What is the perception of the Committee with regard to deserving
low-income citizens? Up to what level do we consider the earner as lowincome?
And once having classified citizens as low-income, how do we now determine
whether one is deserving or not? If a low-income earner is deserving, what
about
those who are less deserving? Will not social justice apply to them? Is it not
that social justice is more called for because they are less deserving?
MS. NIEVA: Is the Gentleman saying that we should provide for those who
have no income whatsoever?
MR. DAVIDE: My point is, we should not qualify in favor of the low-income
citizens entitled to decent housing because we are practically granting relief
to
those who are deserving since they are of low income; but what about those
who are deserving and yet are without any income or have a much lower
income?
They cannot enjoy social justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that with a general principle. That partly
answers the query as to the meaning of structures and processes. I think
that in
non-market allocation of goods and services largely through the bureaucracy,
some things have to be done in terms of setting the rules for classifying
beneficiaries or clients, as some agencies call them. Some sets of priorities
and the rules for implementing these would have to be established so that
not
anyone who claims to be poor and deserving should be granted these
services. This is because in the history of access to goods and services, the
rules and
methods have been honored in the breach. We are saying now that given
adequate monitoring of statistical information and adequate research into
the social
and demographic characteristics of Philippine society, we ought to have
some clear scientific basis for categorization
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the reason why categorizing low-income citizens
into deserving or not deserving or less deserving is, in effect, dangerous
because I do not think that the concept of social justice should also
categorize the people as to whether they are deserving or not, especially in
the
matter of urban land reform and housing.
Section 11 provides:
Urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished
without due process of law.
We have the Anti-Squatting Law which is P.D. No. 772. According to the law it
is a crime to squat, and ones dwelling unit can be demolished even without
court order because the act itself of occupying a private land or a public land
according to that decree is a crime. I agree that this should be
interpreted to mean that P.D. No. 772 would be deemed repealed upon the
ratification of this Constitution.
I would like to get the sentiment of the Committee because that is my stand.
MS. NIEVA: We shall welcome some kind of amendment or reformulation of
this section because this is a very crucial issue, and different views have
been
presented on why we should not punish the poor for being what they are,
and whether we are referring here to those who have already been paying
for their
lands but are being evicted unjustly.
MR. DAVIDE: That is why I am really for the immediate repeal of that unjust
decree.
Another point, Mr. Presiding Officer, on Section 11 again. Of course, this does
not refer to private contracts for occupancy of a house by an urban poor
dweller. This has reference to urban poor dwellers on lands where they have
built their own barong-barong. In short, this is not intended to negate or to
be in derogation of the ordinary contract of lease.
MR. GARCIA: May I answer that. Our historical experience precisely refers to
urban poor communities occupying unused idle lands or abandoned lands
where
they have been living for a long time. In the past, whenever there was an
excuse for the government to evict them, it would bring in the military or
police
to drive the people out by force without any kind of consideration as to the
historical circumstances and to the rights of these inhabitants who, after
many long years, have been residents of that area and have found jobs
nearby.
MR. DAVIDE: So in other words, the answer is no.
MR. GARCIA: No.
MR. DAVIDE: Is this not to be interpreted as a negation or a derogation of the

ordinary contract of lease entered into between private individuals, with
one as the lessee and the other as the lessor?
MR. GARCIA: No, definitely not. As I said initially when we were discussing the
framework for social justice, this deals with age-old social aberrations,
situations where sectors of the population are in. In the City of Manila, onethird perhaps of the population is found in this kind of situation, and also
in many cities like Cebu and Davao. This is the kind of question being
addressed in this provision.
MR. DAVIDE: So for clarification again, the urban land reform and housing
programs as contemplated here will not affect contractual rights between
lessors
and lessees of lands or buildings.
MS. NIEVA: That is correct.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is so, we would not affect the urban housing program
presently being undertaken because if a lessee has constructed a house on
the land
of a lessor and he has been occupying this for more than ten years, he can
already benefit under the program.
MS. NIEVA: That is what we think, yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer and members of the
Committee.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask for a short suspension so
that the Committee can have a brief respite?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : The session is suspended.
It was 5:08 p.m.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I remind all Members that at twelve or
twelve-thirty tomorrow noon, we will have an important executive caucus at
the
request of the leadership of the Commission.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Mr. Floor Leader, who is next in line
to interpellate?
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, on behalf of the Committee.
Commissioner Villacorta would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is a reaction to the observations
and questions, particularly of our lawyer-colleagues in the Commission. I can
understand why they are especially concerned with existing laws and with
how these laws harmonize with the sections that we are proposing. However,
we
should not forget that the Article on Social Justice spells out a vision that will
take our society towards a certain desired direction. Our Committee
provides the legal framework for such a vision and does not seek to shelve
laws or judicial precedence for as long as they are consistent with this vision
and unless they are subsequently repealed. I say this because I am bothered
by this preoccupation with existing laws, decrees and judicial precedence. I
would also like to stress that the vision of our Committee is not new; it was
also the spirit underlying the 1971 Constitutional Convention. Even former
Chief Justice Fernando, in his book on constitutional law, acknowledged that
the spirit of the times is not inclined towards laissez faire but towards
social welfare. Commissioner Maambong has referred to the Calalang vs.
Williams case which affirms that social justice means the adoption by the
government of measures calculated to ensure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society through the maintenance of a proper
economic and
social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community.
Economic and social equilibrium is predicated on the idea of social balance.
In the situation of acute imbalance that we are now in, the proposals of our
Committee, which seek to achieve balance by raising the poorest quality of
life, take on an extreme urgency. Social equilibrium assumes an environment
in
which peaceful transactions are possible. But we know that given unjust
relations and structures, the future of peaceful transactions is imperilled in
our
country. Widespread insurgency and continuing unrest will bear out the claim
that this equilibrium in its very serious form prevails in Philippine society.
The purpose of social justice measures, therefore, as enunciated by our

Committee, is to correct this serious imbalance. Should there be a conflict
between
the common good and the right to private property which I think is enshrined
in the Civil Code formulated circa the 1950s, and in Supreme Court decisions
which were penned in the 1940s, then we must be reminded that the
imperatives of our present social and economic crises dictate that we give
priority to
the common good. If we accept that the common good has primacy, the
concept of salus populi or peoples welfare assumes a more contemporary
meaning-the
good of the majority in the Philippine context, the good of the poor, the
workers and the peasants.
Before us now, fellow Commissioners, are two choices. Do we effect change,
meaningful reforms, in social structures and relations through our
Constitution,
or can change be achieved only through a total overhaul of society possible
only after a revolution, a military solution? I think that the issue boils down
to these two choices and I would like to pose these as the challenge to all of
us Commissioners.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Concepcion is
recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: I agree with the observations made by Professor Villacorta
but I want to call attention to one thing. My colleagues will notice that when
lawyers ask them, Is this decision affected? Is this within the framework of
such decision? that means, they do not know, and many of us do not know
what
is actually encompassed by the thoughts that we are developing. This is an
important thing because we have not only to vote on it, but we have to
explain
to the public.
When lawyers who are supposed to be intelligent, although many disagree,
find it difficult to understand these things, how do we expect the masses to
understand the same? And it will be our task, after the adoption of the
Constitution or even before the plebiscite, to explain it to the people. So, the
problem is one of communication or understanding.
There seems to be the impression on the part of some that certain ideas are
set forth in beautiful phrases, but the substance of the ideas escapes them
insofar as they affect status quo. So, please do not misunderstand the
position of lawyers. They may be candid when they ask questions which they
foresee
are those they will have to answer later. It would be embarrassing for
Members of this Commission to be unable to explain adequately the contents
of the
new Constitution in simple language understandable by the masses. And that
is our actual problem as we draft the Constitution. Some are apparently
under
the impression that there is so much verbiage that the substance is lost in
elaborating the form. It is something like one of these beauty pageants
where
the first presentation shows the candidates in elaborate costumes more or
less exaggerated, that one would not really know who is pretty and who is
not.
(Laughter)
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just address a clarificatory
question to the honorable Commissioner Concepcion. I think this is very
fundamental since we are speaking of premises in our discussions.
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: I fully appreciate the manifestation, but I would like further
clarification. Is it correct for us to assume that this Constitution we are
framing will necessarily overrule our existing laws and decrees?
MR. CONCEPCION: That depends upon the provisions of the Constitution we
are drafting.
MR. VILLACORTA: What about in cases of conflicts?
MR. CONCEPCION: That is precisely the problem of the lawyers. They do not
know how the Constitution we are drafting will affect the past jurisprudence.
MR. VILLACORTA: Many of us are getting the impression that there is so much
preoccupation with legalese. And in speaking about a basically nonlegal
issue
such as social justice, the main consideration should not be the legal status
quo precisely because the provisions on social justice are aimed at
restructuring society for the good of all. So that when we speak of the rights
of the poor, we are not particularizing solely for the benefit of the poor,
but for the benefit of society as a whole.
MR. CONCEPCION: I agree with the Gentleman entirely. But still we cannot
help those of us who have grown up in a climate of legality not to think in
terms
of legality because these provisions will have to be brought to the courts of
justice. So we are supposed to defend them one way or the other or apply
them
or reconcile them or state that they have been modified. And that is the
point; it is communication.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer. I think the
clarification has helped very much to improve communication between us
and sharpen
future perceptions.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you.
SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Commissioner Concepcions intervention has given me the courage
to speak like this, because I have been feeling very uneasy about these
lawyers
and nonlawyers. We work very hard in our Committee, but it seems that we
are working on two parallel lines.
So we plead to the lawyers to help us because we do not know how to
formulate this in legal language. Instead of trying to look for loopholes and
our
mistakes, we ask that they help us so that what will come out will be legal
and will be helpful to the 70-percent majority, instead of trying to catch us
every time.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, Commissioner Rosario Braid would like to
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, members of the Committee: since
we are trying to evolve a genuine agrarian reform program, perhaps we
could link
it with a little of history in terms of the attempts of past laws, such as P.D.
No. 27, in trying to transfer power from the hands of many to a few, and
how we tried to rectify the Macapagal Land Reform Code which did not have
enough safeguards against the transfer of ownership and tax evasion by
landlords.
With all its rhetoric, P.D. No. 27 failed to materialize because of programs of
government that lessened its effectiveness. For instance, General Order 47
established the Corporate Farm Program to boost food production. It became
clear that the Corporate Farm Program proceeded at a much faster pace than
the
agrarian reform program. For example, from 1977 to 1982, there were a total
of 60,424 hectares divided among the 487 participating public and private
corporations. P.D. No. 619 permitted the conversion of such lands into
reserves for large-scale grazing projects. LOI 46 stated that in the
implementation
of the agrarian reform program, the requirements of the agro-industrial
program should be given equal consideration.
So, what I am saying is that some of these decrees and I could cite other
decrees placed the government in a situation where it had to reconcile its
conflicting goals of social justice and productivity. Also, we have to operate in
present-day realities where the issue of survival is paramount, where
putting employment and income in the hands of the farmer is a priority goal.
The search for alternatives such as making some of these existing corporate
farms available to individual farmers with technical assistance from the
former provides another alternative. There are alternatives in the form of
communal farms and nucleus estates.
When we examine the agrarian reform program in the past in terms of costs,
we could see that only one million beneficiaries have benefited. On the other
hand, there were 1.4 million agricultural workers who were left out. Only 17
percent of the total agricultural lands is under the land reform program. We
also learned from research about the dependency on export markets and
imported inputs. We have seen that where there was increased productivity,
there were
negative consequences such as an estimated loan default of P3.5 billion in
1983 as a result of the land reform program.
With regard to the first section on social justice, may I suggest such concepts
as equitable sharing of fruits and means of production and power, need
rather than merit, and active participation of people in planning and
implementation of development. Another concern is the apparent lack of
linkage
with nonformal education and information that would insure the needed
attitudinal transformation. This would require reaching the middle class, the
employer, the landowners, the planters as the linking mechanisms in
development. If we could direct existing human resource development
programs in terms
of reorientation of these sectors so that they would voluntarily share land,

voluntarily share profit and power, we could accelerate the process of
development.
Lastly, I would like to suggest in the sections on women that we also include
the illiterate women who are even more exploited.
In the health section, could we include the need for information on
appropriate food habits and appropriate use of indigenous resources such as
herbal
medicines?
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized for one
question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Sarmiento may pose
his question.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I seek clarifications from the
distinguished Committee members.
On June 11, 1978, President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1517, proclaiming urban
land reform in the Philippines and providing for the implementing machinery
thereof. Section 6 of P.D. No. 1517 reads:
Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. Within the urban zones,
legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more, who
have built
their homes on the land and residents who have legally occupied the lands
by contract, continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of
the
land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same
within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under terms and
conditions to
be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management
Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree.
May I know from the members of the Committee whether this Section 6,
especially on the right of first refusal by legitimate tenants, is within the
intendment of Sections 10 and 11 on urban land reform and housing of the
Article on Social Justice? May I address this question either to Commissioner
Aquino or Commissioner Suarez.
MR. SUAREZ: Commissioner Sarmiento, is it true that many of the lawyers in

the Commission are alarmed by the constitutional impact of some of the
provisions proposed by the Committee on Social Justice? One of those
problems is with respect to the implications of Sections 10 and 11 on the
existing
decrees governing the situation. The Gentleman cited the provisions,
particularly P.D. No. 1517.
The way the Committee on Social Justice envisions it, we are not so much
concerned about the legal implications because we feel that the holding of
property has something to do with social equality. Of course, we have a right
to assert. especially from the legal standpoint, and this was correctly
pointed out by our beloved former Chief Justice Concepcion, that since many
of us in the Committee are nonlawyers and the lawyers as usual cannot get
out
of that mental groove of depending on jurisprudence and precedents, we
may have to live with the Calalang vs. Williams doctrine. So now, we have to
wrestle
with this problem of the realities as against the law.
Yes, the correct direct answer to the question of the Gentleman is, it would
have to be affected by the provisions of Sections 10 and 11. The only
justification is the fact that under the Preamble of the Constitution which we
have approved, we must establish a government that is just and humane,
and
we must be governed by the rule of law. What we are constitutionalizing
must be for the common good. These are the only constitutional justifications
for
what Commissioner Sarmiento is trying to picture before the Commission.
If I may call the attention of the body to the provisions of Section 11, there is
the catch-all provision saying without due process of law, which means
that we are governed by the rules until Congress shall provide otherwise. So,
I say that even if we enact drastic provisions which would call for a change
in the complexion of government-people relationship, we will have to be
governed by the existing laws until such time that the legislature shall
provide
otherwise.
MR. SARMIENTO: In other words, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am made to
understand that this right of first refusal by legitimate tenants is still valid.
MR. SUAREZ: It is still valid.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much for that.
I have one last question. During the past administration, the President issued
eight decrees on urban land reform; namely, P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640, 1642;
Proclamation Nos. 1767, 1893, 1967; LOI No. 935 and B.P. Blg. 25.
May I know the effect of the ratification of this Constitution on these existing
proclamations or laws on urban land reform?
MR. SUAREZ: I think there is a general provision regarding those. All of those
presidential decrees, laws, general orders or letters of instructions which
may be inconsistent with the provisions of this new Constitution will no
longer have valid effect and will no longer be operative. In the Committee on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions, we have provided, as a matter of
fact, such a section and I suppose the Commissioner has in mind what are
known as
the blighted areas where the BLISS Housing Programs had been organized,
principally in Metro Manila. If those eight or nine decrees enumerated will not
be
inconsistent with the provisions in the Article on Social Justice which may be
approved by the Commission, they would continue to flourish, prosper and
perhaps solve ultimately our social problems obtaining in Metro Manila.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I was warned that we are going to adjourn at six oclock, so I
will just ask two very brief questions. I belong to the Committee but I
signed with minor reservations and these are the two points that I would like
to bring up. After a long discussion on the right to strike, even by
government employees, I was wondering whether a distinction that we use in
social philosophy could be helpful here and solve the difficulties of the other
Members of the Commission. In social philosophy, we admit the existence of
a right while, at the same time, we say that that right may, under some
circumstances, not be exercised. For example, every man has a right to
marry, but when he takes the vow of celibacy, he cannot exercise that right,
although the fundamental right remains and is acknowledged by the Church,
even in our case. We have the right to marry and that is not denied, and yet
we
cannot exercise that right. A Carmelite sister has a natural right to travel and
to change abodes but when she takes a vow as a Carmelite, then she cannot
travel; that is, she therefore renounces the exercise of that right.
And so, would not that be a solution to possible difficulties regarding the
statement that even government employees have a right to strike, but under
certain circumstances, they will not be able to exercise that right? For
example, the doctors and nurses who are about to conduct an operation
cannot join
a strike, otherwise the patient will die. So, would that be a distinction
admissible to the Commission?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, I think that is a very useful explanation of how the
exercise of such right could be restraining for certain sectors. And I am one
of
those who personally believe that the right to strike should not be denied the
government workers; that is why we deleted the early formulation of
Commissioner Aquino that we include a proviso that the Armed Forces and
civil defense and civil servants be excluded in the exercise of the right to
strike. I believe that they have such an understanding, and I personally
believe that government workers who have been for years conditioned and
indoctrinated to subservience, obedience and compliance will not resort to
that particular measure. During the previous years, we saw that teachers
and
some other health workers have tried to exercise concerted action, precisely
because of the neglect of the State to correct the conditions that prevent
them from exercising their obligation, which is, to render essential services
to the people. We have heard of doctors and nurses actually resorting to
concerted action because they believed that the conditions they were
exposed to prevented them from exercising primarily their right and their
duty to
render essential services to prolong lives or take care of the sick
because of the decision of officials to deny the people of those basic rights.
So,
there are situations where government workers resort to the ultimate
recourse for them to correct the conditions which prevent them from
exercising their
basic duties as members of government.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask the lawyer in the Committee whether in law there
is admitted that distinction between having a right and actually being able to
exercise that right, or will the denial of the ability to exercise a particular
right actually mean in law the denial of a right?
MR. SUAREZ: I think the conclusion of Commissioner Bacani is correct in that
regard. The right may exist, but the exercise of that right may be restrained;
it all depends upon the one exercising the right. But the mere fact that that
right exists will pose a number of complex problems. Of course, one can
always waive that right, except in certain instances where a right granted by
law or by the Constitution is not waivable, but normally that right may not
be exercised by the one entitled to the exercise of that right. But it is very
difficult to provide for that in the Constitution.
BISHOP BACANI: My second question is this: We had a long discussion on
Section 5 but, finally, we could not come to a full agreement regarding the
primacy
of the rights of farmers and farm workers to own directly or collectively the
lands they till. I am mindful that this Constitution is being written not
only for the next five years or ten years, and that in twenty-five years time
we might have highly mechanized farming in the Philippines. Suppose a man
is
employed to farm a certain land owned by another man, and works on it for
about three or four hours a day, would Commissioner Tadeo say that the man
would
have the primacy of right to own the land? Is there no need to change this?
The more important thing does not seem to be the right to own, but the right
to use and the right to enjoy the fruits of ones labor or ones crop or ones
property. That is why I would like to propose that the Committee, without
going into the question of primacy of the rights of farmers and workers to
own
directly or collectively the land they till, could state as a policy of the
government the encouragement and undertaking of the just distribution of
all
agricultural lands.
MR. TADEO: Ang tunay na reporma sa lupa ay pangunahing nakabatay sa
kapakinabangan ng mga biyaya nito sa nagbubungkal ng lupa at lumilikha
ng yaman nito at
sa nagmamay-ari ng lupa.
BISHOP BACANI: Ngunit katulad noong kasong binanggit ko sa inyo, bakit ba
siya ang dapat magmay-ari kung mayroong may-ari ng lupa at itoy
tinatrabaho lang
niya, halimbawa sa isang araw lamang dahilan sa mechanized farming?
MR. TADEO: May mga katangian para masabi nating siya ay isang
magsasaka. Halimbawa, mula sa pagpupunla at sa paghahanda ng lupa, siya
ang gumagawa. Siya
rin ang nangangasiwa sa lahat, bagamat mayroong mga pagkakataong
umuupa siya. Lahat ng operasyon ay ginagawa niya, at ang pagsasaka ay
ang kanyang primary
occupation.
BISHOP BACANI: Nang akoy nagbakasyon sa France, doon sa village na
tinirhan ko ay mayroong mga nagtatrabaho roon, ngunit hindi nila pag-aari
ang lupa.
Sila raw ang nagtanim at sila rin ang aani. Sandaling-sandali lang nilang
inani ang mayroong limang ektarya. Ang magsasaka ang siyang nagtanim,
siyang
nag-alaga at siyang nag-ani. Puwede ba niyang sabihin, kung mangyari iyon
dito sa Pilipinas, Dapat ako na ang magmay-ari nito bastat mayroon akong
ibabayad. Kailangang ipagbili ninyo sa akin. At iyon ay maaaring hindi na
malayo kung tayoy umunlad sa ating agrikultura.
MR. TADEO: Sa ilalim ng RA 3844, para masabi mong tenant ka,
kinakailangang magkaroon ng tenancy relation na nagbubuwis ka, para
masabing ikaw ang siyang
tunay na tenant. Itoy iiral doon sa mga asyenda, mga plantasyon, regardless
of tenurial arrangement. Para bang ipinapakitang ang pangunahing
katangian ng
isang tunay na reporma sa lupa ay iyong ikaw ang nagbubungkal, regardless
of crops, regardless of tenurial arrangement.
BISHOP BACANI: Hindi ba ang dapat ay mapunta sa iyo ang karapatan mo at
ikaw ang dapat maunang magtamasa ng bunga ng iyong ginawa?
MR. TADEO: Ganito lang po iyon, Commissioner Bacani, parang inilalabas mo
lamang ang tricycle ng may-ari. Iba iyong pag-aalaga mo sa tricycle kung
pag-aari
mo ito kaysa sa itoy nililinis mo lamang.
BISHOP BACANI: Ngunit maaaring mangyari ito. Hindi natin masasabi na
hindi mangyayaring ang isang tao ay magmana sa kaniyang magulang ng
lupa na within a
retention limit naman. Pagkatapos, iyong lupang iyong hindi niya mismo
matrabaho ay maaaring ipatrabaho niya sa iba. Dahil sa minana lamang sa
ninuno ang
lupa, sasabihin niya: Mahal na mahal sa amin ang lupang ito. Maaari bang
sabihin noong magsasaka: Dahil ako ang natatrabaho rito, kahit na minana
mo pa
iyan sa tatay mo o sa lolo mong nagpakahirap diyan, kailangang ipagbili mo
na sa akin.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Villacorta may reply.
MR. VILLACORTA: Dahil sa si Bishop Bacani ang nagsasalita, naalaala ko
iyong Ebanghelyo kahapon buhat kay San Lukas na kung saan sinabi ng
isang tao na
sumasalubong kay Kristo, Tulungan Mo naman akong makuha ko sa kapatid
ko iyong karapat-dapat kong minana. Ang sabi ni Kristo, Ano ba ang

palagay mo sa
Akin, arbiter o huwes? Pagkatapos ay nagkuwento Siya ng isang parabula
tungkol sa isang taong nagtatambak ng kayamanan na pinarusahan ng
Diyos. Ang sabi
ng Diyos: Napakagahaman mo naman. Kukunin Ko na lang ang buhay mo
ngayon. Ang leksyong ipinahihiwatig diyan ng Bibliya, sa palagay ko, ay
hindi natin
dapat bigyan ng lubusang halaga ang pamana sapagkat itoy isang
pribilehiyo, hindi isang karapatan. Sa pagmumuni-muni at pagsasaalangalang ng konsepto ng
katarungang panlipunan, sa akin lang pong hamak na palagay, ay higit na
mahalaga ang kabutihan ng karamihan kaysa sa kabutihan ng kakaunting
nakamana.
Salamat po.
BISHOP BACANI: Ngunit hindi naman siya ang hari, hindi naman siya ang
sakim dahil maaaring hindi naman siya mayamang-mayaman. Pero mahal
lang iyon sa kanya
at hindi naman niya ipagkakait ang bungang nararapat doon sa magsasaka.
MR. BENNAGEN: Maaari kayang magdagdag sa pagpapaliwanag ng
primacy? Kasi may cultural background ito. Dahil agrarian society pa ang
lipunang Pilipino,
maigting talaga ang ugnayan ng mga magsasaka sa kanilang lupa.
Halimbawa, sinasabi nila na ang lupa ay pinagbuhusan na ng dugo, pawis at
luha. So land
acquires a symbolic content that is not simply negated by growth, by
productivity, etc. The primacy should be seen in relation to an agrarian
program that
leads to a later stage of social development which at some point in time may
already negate this kind of attachment. The assumption is that there are
already certain options available to the farmers. Marahil ang primacy ay ang
pagkilala sa pangangailangan ng magsasaka ang pag-aari ng lupa. Ang
assumption ay ang pag-aari mismo ng lupa becomes the basis for the
farmers to enjoy the benefits, the fruits of labor. But later on, since we are
saying in
Section 9 that this process of reforming an agrarian society would lead to
some kind of industrialized society, mawawala iyong mga ganoong cultural
considerations. Marahil ang primacy na sinasabi rito ay magbabago rin ang
kahulugan. Kaya lang long-term dapat ang ating pagtingin sa program ng
agrarian
reform.
BISHOP BACANI: Mainam sana kung ganoon dahil masasabi ko ring may
symbolic values sa akin iyong lupang iyon dahil pinaghirapan naman ng lolo
at ng tatay
ko.
MR. BENNAGEN: But eventually, magkakaroon din ng pagbabago iyong
ganoong pananaw. Kaya nga long-term ang dapat na pagtingin sa agrarian
reform.
BISHOP BACANI: Maraming salamat po.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, Commissioner Padilla wishes to be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have been hearing many statements
which I feel should not remain as truth and should be challenged. In answer
to
Commissioner Bacani, Commissioner Villacorta made the statement that
Ang mana ay hindi karapatan; it is a privilege. That is a strange doctrine
because
that will destroy the whole system of succession in the Civil Code. Why will
parents sacrifice and work hard to provide financial security for their
children? The theory will abolish incentives to hard work and industry. I also
heard that there is a right but it may not be exercised. Right and duty are
correlative. If one has a right, others affected by that right have an
obligation. One may waive his right or the exercise thereof may be limited by
law or
by some public interest or by the police power of the State. But if a person
has a right, he should have the right to exercise it. Commissioner Bacani
mentioned the right of a person to marry. Is that a right or is it more a
freedom? One may have the right to marry but no one is bound by a
reciprocal
duty.
There was also that biblical quotation from Commissioner Tingson regarding
a small community that works together, maybe owns property together, and
shares
the benefits together. That is all very good, but that will be some sort of a
voluntary association or a partnership or co-ownership sharing the profits
proportionately. Let us consider the case of Commissioner Bernas who, by
joining the Society of Jesus, waives certain rights because he takes
voluntarily
the vows of poverty, obedience and chastity. But it is not correct to apply
that biblical quotation to the entire nation. That is good from a voluntary
standpoint.
We always invoke the common good there can be no dispute about the
common good or common welfare. In fact, it is the inherent power of the
State to
promote the common welfare by the exercise of police power. Whether we
like it or not, if our acts or even our rights are detrimental to the common
good,
these obstruct the promotion of common welfare. These rights can be
restricted, limited or even denied. But when we talk of common good, the
members of the
Committee assume that all that they have proposed in the Committee report
are for the common good even if by so doing, they have imposed so many
obligations for the State to provide this, to undertake, to help this and that.
We are actually restricting, if not impairing, the rights of others.
I am alarmed by a statement of Commissioner Villacorta when he said that
there is now a present far-reaching imbalance which we must correct in this
Constitution, otherwise we may have a revolution. I think that is not only an
overstatement but a misstatement. Let us not alarm the Members of the
Commission to approve all these very far-reaching programs under the socalled social justice because of the fear that our people and our nation
cannot
proceed gradually and peacefully. I have always been mentioning that one
can have progress and prosperity through investments and hard work, but
not
through rights granted to one sector at the expense of other sectors.
What is wrong with a person having property, private property? According to
President Lincoln:
Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable. It is a positive good in the
world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and
hence, it is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is homeless pull down the house of another but let him work diligently and
build one for himself, thus, by example, assuring that his own shall be safe
from violence when built.
Some questions like those of Commissioner Sarmiento assume that the
urban land reform program by presidential decree of President Marcos during
martial law
was not only for the common good or was valid or was proper and desirable.
My own personal opinion is that many decrees of the past regime during
martial
law should no longer be honored because they are not good laws. On one
occasion, I came across a distinction between a republic act passed by

Congress and
approved by the President and a presidential decree, a unilateral act of the
past regime under dictatorship exercising Amendment No. 6 by issuing
proclamations, decrees, orders and instructions. In my opinion, the urban
land reform program (P.D. No. 1607) is illegal and unconstitutional because it
is
directly in violation of the right to private property which is guaranteed by
the Constitution.
With regard to social justice, we have mentioned Calalang vs. Williams, 70
Phils. 726 which reads:
The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken
sympathy towards any given group. Social justice therefore must be founded
on the
recognition of the necessity of interdependence among diverse units of
society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to
all
groups as a combined force in our social and economic rights . . .
We should be careful that in trying to protect and promote the well-being of
what so many call the poor, the underprivileged, the marginal and other
similar terms, we do so by fomenting progress and prosperity by increasing
our productivity, goods and services, whether it be by domestic investments
or
foreign investments. But this requires private entrepreneurs who will risk
their capital in extending the wheels of industry to be able to absorb a
portion
of our growing unemployed. Verily, my friends, a worker or a farm worker I
am not discounting his potentialities by himself cannot promote our
economic
development. Labor is an essential element of development, but there must
not be too much stress like primacy and other preferential words for the
workers,
forgetting completely the other sectors of our society who can extend the
production of our lands-more fish from our waters, more mines from our
mountains
...
I do not want to read further some of the statements by Justices Tuazon and
Montemayor in Guido vs. Rural Progress, and in Republic vs. Baylosis, but let
me just cite a few short lines:
The promotion of social justice ordained in the Constitution does not supply a
paramount basis for the untrammeled expropriation of private land by the
Rural Progress Administration or any other government instrumentality.
Social justice does not champion division of property or equality of economic
system. What it and the Constitution do guarantee are equality of
opportunity, equality of political rights, equality before the law, equality
within values given and received, and equitable sharing of the social and
material goods on the basis of efforts exerted in their production.
And from the Baylosis case on the Article on the Constitution about landed
estates, I quote:
It intended to discourage the concentration of excessive landed wealth in an
entity or a few individuals but surely it did not intend or seek to distribute
wealth among citizens or take away from the citizen land which he did not
actually need and give it to another who needs it. That does not come within
the
realm of social justice.
I have many more statements but I will not impose upon the indulgence of
the Commission.
Thank you.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, a matter of personal privilege since I
was alluded to twice.
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: I would just like to mention that I cited the Bible which is a
source of moral law, not a source of positive law. When I said that my
interpretation of that biblical excerpt is that inheritance is a privilege rather
than a right, I was invoking what we believe to be the Word of God, not
what human laws say. I think that even in a legalistic body such as this, we
cannot be constrained from quoting from the Christian doctrine which we feel
is more reliable than human statements. If we are to take literally, for
example, the decision penned by Supreme Court Chief Justice Jose Laurel,
Sr., I
can see no reason why we could not quote from St. Luke and use it as an
equally authoritative source for determining principles of morality and law, I
will
not quote from Abraham Lincoln nor from other Chief Justices. I would like to
quote from respected fellow Commissioner Francisco Soc Rodrigo:
Ang payo nila sa mga kulang-palad

ay gumising sanat sikaping malaman
Ang kanilang mga laya t karapatan
Sa loob ng isang pambayang lipunan.
Kung ito ay hindi nila malalaman,
Kung di nila ito ipagsasanggalang . . .
Ay wala na silang sukat na asahan
Liban sa kanilang aping katayuan.
Sikapin din nilang maalis, mahawan
Ang mga balakid na kasasabitan
Ng mga mahinat dukhang mamamayan
Sa gubat at sukal ng ating lipunan.
And lastly, Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to quote from Chapter 18 of
Sirach in the Old Testament which says:
When you have all you want, think what it is like to be hungry, what it is to
be poor. Things can change in a single day; the Lord can act very quickly.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask for an adjournment until
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : The session is adjourned until
It was 6:39 p.m.
Footnotes:
R.C.C. NO. 48
Tuesday, August 5, 1986

OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Teodoro C. Bacani.
PRAYER
BISHOP BACANI: Father, for more than two months now we have been
working at our appointed task of formulating a Constitution that will be truly
responsive
to the Filipino people. Often now we feel weariness, a perhaps, on occasions,
discouragement.
Father, give us renewed strength. Continue to pour down Your light upon us;
continue to fill our hearts with love and concern for our brethren, especially
the less privileged; and continue to give us strength of body and soul, so that
with unflagging zeal we may continue the task that You have given us and
that what You have begun so marvelously in us may be accomplished by You
through us.
This we ask You through Christ our Lord. Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present*
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present*
Azcuna
Present*
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present*
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of quorum.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we dispense with the reading
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
of Business.
motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Oscar N. Rivera of Zobel Street, San Miguel Village, Makati,
suggesting that the issue of United States military bases in the Philippines
be treated as a separate proposal independent of the main Constitution
when the Constitution is presented to the people for ratification.
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions
Letter from Fr. Raymundo Hilot of the Episcopal Commission on Tribal
Filipinos, 372 Cabildo Street, Intramuros, Manila, submitting a resolution
adopted by
the 5th SILDAP-SIDLAKAN General Assembly, seeking inclusion in the
Constitution of provisions on the national tribal Filipinos right to
self-determination.
Communication from Sheikh Ahmad Bashier, Chairman of the Bangsa Moro
Multi-Sectoral Conference, submitting proposals on autonomous
governments and autonomy
for the Bangsa Moro nation as special constitutional provisions.
Letter from Mr. Fred C. Whiting, President, The American Chamber of

Commerce of the Philippines, Inc., P.O. Box 1578 MCC, Makati, Metro Manila,
expressing
the opinion that proposed resolutions before the Constitutional Commission
regarding foreign participation in franchised utilities in the Philippines would
be counter-productive to the governments goal of making the business
climate attractive to foreign investment, urging therefor a very serious
consideration of the negative effects that may well result from altering the
present 60/40 ratio of participation
(Communication No. 445 Constitutional Commission
Letter from Ms. Remedios C. Galsim and five others of the Concerned
Citizens Council, B.F. Homes, Paraaque, Metro Manila, suggesting inclusion
in the
Article on Social Justice in the Constitution, the definition and principles of
just wage and labor has priority over capital.
Letter from Mr. Elviro P. Lagrana of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental,
submitting a position paper for the retention of U.S. military bases in the
Philippines
until such time as we attain economic strength capable of developing our
land, air and naval defenses against external attack.
Letter from Mr. Delfin R. Manlapaz of 1707 E. Rodriguez, Sr. Blvd., Cubao,
Quezon City, Metro Manila submitting proposed amendments to Resolution
to
Incorporate in the New Constitution an Article on Education, Science and
Technology, Sports, Arts, and Culture (Committee Report No. 29).
Communication from the Tribal Filipino Apostolate, Diocesan Pastoral
Services, Sacred Heart Convent, Zamora Street, Butuan City, signed by Mr.
Erric Rico
and forty-one others, urging the Constitutional Commission to consider the
following proposals: (1) that the Lumads be given the right to own/utilize
their
ancestral domain; (2) that the Lumads be given the right to selfdetermination; (3) that the Lumad culture be honored and respected; (4) that
a government
agency motivated to serve the Lumads and the rest of the minority peoples
be created; and (5) that government services be made available to the
Lumads.
Letters from Mr Bienvenido A. Castillo of 50 McKinley, Pulilan, Bulacan,
suggesting the following prohibiting election officials from acting as sponsors
in
weddings or baptism to do away with the padrino system; congressional
approval of the declaration of martial law, suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus
and foreign borrowings; prohibiting members of the Cabinet from holding
other government offices; prohibiting the President to grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons; trial by jury, among others; opposing the
creation of autonomous governments of Cordillera and Mindanao; opposing
land reform,
saying that it is outright landgrabbing and a political gimmick of the past
regime, and opposing the discussion of the U.S. military bases issue at this
time as it is delaying the countrys economic recovery.
Letter from Mr. Briccio T. Aguilos, Jr., Provincial Attorney of Leyte, submitting,
upon direction of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of said province,
proposals on local government autonomy.
CONSIDERATION OF
Continuation
MR. RAMA: On the agenda this morning, we still have the continuation of the
consideration of the Article on Social Justice. We have just finished the
period of sponsorship and debate. The last interpellator spoke at the end of
the session yesterday. So, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and
debate on the Article on Social Justice.
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: I move that we proceed to the period of amendments.
motion is approved.
The body is now open to consider amendments. We are requesting the
different proponents to submit their proposed amendments to the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: To give the Committee time to deliberate on the
amendments and to enable its members to express their reactions thereto,
the Chair suspends
the session for a few minutes.
MR. RAMA: Thank you, Madam President.
It was 9:59 a.m.

MR. SARMIENTO: After conferring with the members of the Committee and
the proponents of various amendments, I would like to announce that this
will be our
procedure this morning. First, the proponents will present their amendments.
Should there be a clarification, the members of the Committee will give their
explanation but without necessarily accepting the amendments. All the
proponents will present their amendments and the Committee will pool all of
these and
then discuss the amendments this afternoon or tonight. Then, by tomorrow,
they will give their ruling on these amendments presented by different
proponents.
So, let this be clear that we will not vote on the various amendments that will
be presented by the proponents this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the first proponent?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, Commissioner Villegas would like to yield
to Commissioner Romulo for his amendments.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, on Section 1, I have an amendment by
substitution which reads as follows: THE STATE SHALL PURSUE SOCIAL
JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES
OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL
ENACT MEASURES TO ENHANCE HUMAN DIGNITY BY REDUCING SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUITIES
AND BY EQUITABLY DIFFUSING WEALTH AND POWER FOR THE COMMON
GOOD.
MR. BENGZON: Would Commissioner Romulo be willing to change the word
REDUCING to ELIMINATING?
MR. ROMULO: Is that possible in the real world?
MR. BENGZON: Some of our fellow Commissioners in the Committee are
opting for that word but, of course, the Committee is divided on that.
MR. ROMULO: My only objection is that it is unreal.
MR. BENGZON: All right.

MR. MONSOD: Would the proponent be willing to add the word PROFITS after
WEALTH?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I accept that amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President.
MR. VILLEGAS: May I present an amendment to the amendment of
Commissioner Romulo?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas may proceed.
MR. VILLEGAS: After the clause CONGRESS SHALL ENACT MEASURES, I
propose to add TO PROMOTE PRIVATE INITIATIVE IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.
Let me explain this amendment to the amendment.
I think quite a number of Commissioners have expressed the apprehension
that we have overly concentrated on distributing the pie, and we have not
concentrated on making the pie grow. There are a lot of injustices that have
been committed in the past which have prevented millions upon millions of
small and medium-scale entrepreneurs from growing. Crony capitalism or
state capitalism have inflicted untold injustices not on workers, not on
farmers,
but on the millions of self-employed entrepreneurs whom I am afraid the
entire Article seems to have forgotten, because we have dichotomized the
economic
underprivileged into farmers and workers. What about the millions of people
who are neither workers nor farmers the people who operate tricycles,
who own
sari-sari stores, who are eking out a living trying to sell cigarettes or all types
of goods? They are not employees and they are not subject to
exploitation by employers but by specific policies of the State and of other
large businesses that stifle their private initiative. That is why it is very
important in this Article on Social Justice to give recognition to millions of
self-employed entrepreneurs. Hence, that is the reason I would like to
insert this expression: TO PROMOTE PRIVATE INITIATIVE IN ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY.
MR. BENGZON: Which portion is that? Where should we insert that?
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Romulos amendment states, CONGRESS

SHALL ENACT MEASURES TO ENHANCE THE DIGNITY, etc. Before the phrase
TO ENHANCE THE
DIGNITY, I propose to insert: TO PROMOTE PRIVATE INITIATIVE IN ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY so as to read: CONGRESS SHALL ENACT MEASURES TO PROMOTE
PRIVATE
INITIATIVE IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY TO ENHANCE THE DIGNITY.
MR. ROMULO: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We request Commissioner Romulo to give the Secretariat a
copy so that we can provide all Members copies thereof.
FR. BERNAS: Would Commissioner Romulo entertain an amendment? I
propose that ENACT be deleted and substituted with GIVE HIGHEST
PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT
OF so that it reads: IN PURSUIT THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST
PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF. . . I suggest HIGHEST PRIORITY to
emphasize the fact
that this is a very important matter. If all we say is that CONGRESS SHALL
ENACT MEASURES, it means that Congress should exercise police power. But
if we
say, GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF MEASURES, ENHANCE
HUMAN DIGNITY, and so forth, plus the amendment of Commissioner
Villegas, then we are
giving it a sense of urgency.
MR. ROMULO: I accept.
MR. BENGZON: So, where do we insert that amendment?
MR. ROMULO: This is, I believe, subject to corrections. My proposed
amendment, as amended, will now read: THE STATE SHALL PURSUE SOCIAL
JUSTICE IN ALL
PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT THEREOF, CONGRESS
SHALL GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF MEASURES TO
PROMOTE PRIVATE INITIATIVE IN
ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES AND TO ENHANCE HUMAN DIGNITY BY REDUCING
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUITIES AND BY EQUITABLY
DIFFUSING WEALTH, PROFIT AND POWER
FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask whether Commissioner Romulo would be

agreeable to say, SHALL GIVE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT
OF MEASURES TO ENHANCE
HUMAN DIGNITY BY PROMOTING INITIATIVES IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND BY
REDUCING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUITIES, so that the
centerpiece is human
dignity the ENHANCEMENT OF HUMAN DIGNITY?
MR. ROMULO: I have no objection to that; we accept the transposition.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Romulo entertain another amendment by
transposition to his amendment? I think the focus of Section 1 is on the
reordering of
social and economic relations in order to bring about structural social justice.
The insertion of another major philosophy, which is the freedom of
initiative or the freedom of enterprise, tends to offset the central meaning of
Section 1, unless it can be transposed to a new section or perhaps,
postponed till the last part of this paragraph.
I did not bring a prepared text with me; but the freedom of initiative may
detract from the central meaning of the principle of social justice unless it is
transposed to a more appropriate part of Section 1.
MR. ROMULO: That was the suggestion of Commissioner Bacani, to transpose
it after HUMAN DIGNITY.
MR. OPLE: That will still be too early in the paragraph.
MS. AQUINO: I share the sentiment of Commissioner Ople and I object to the
inclusion of that phrase in that section. In fact, growth in the development of
private initiative or private entrepreneurship does not necessarily mean
social distribution of its benefits, and it does not fit well with the concept of
social justice as it is being envisioned. I would see some kind of an imbalance
in concepts, unless this is transposed or deleted from that section.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I favor a transposition, Madam President. Moreover, I think the
right way of entry for freedom of initiative should be in connection with
the consequences of social justice in the sense that this opens up new
opportunities for economic development. I laid the basis for this amendment
yesterday when I said that in the case of the so-called economic miracles
now in our neighborhood such as Japan, Taiwan and Korea. it was necessary
to
introduce first radical land reform before new courses and new capital could
be released from the land. so that land reform fuelled industrialization
rather than hindered it. If this is correct, I see no reason why it can be
controverted.
Then the new growth, new development through freedom of initiative can
become the consequence of the social justice policy. I will leave it to the
craftsmen . . .
MR. ROMULO: Yes. May I ask Commissioner Ople and Commissioner Aquino to
indicate where they feel this freedom of initiative or private initiative
should be placed?
MR. OPLE: It will look more technically correct and, perhaps, more elegant in
terms of constitutional, concepts if this probably can be made supportive of
Section 1 in a new section.
MR. ROMULO: May I ask Commissioner Villegas if he will agree?
MR. VILLEGAS: I can agree; it can be a separate section.
Let me just reiterate what I said. A lot of injustices are being committed
against small entrepreneurs or self-employed people and they should also be
the
object of our concern for social justice. So, I am not thinking of economic
growth here. Economic growth will be addressed sufficiently in the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony.
I am thinking here of precisely historical, monopolistic, feudalistic and other
practices which favor either state corporations or large corporations to
the detriment of a lot of people who are trying to start their own businesses.
I think this has to be recognized in the Article on Social Justice because
we are trying to give everyone his due. Remember, justice is defined as
trying to give everyone his due, and from our analysis of Philippine economic
history, a lot of small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs have been
systematically prejudiced by State policies, as well as by the practices of
private
monopolies whether multinational or national.
MR. ROMULO: Therefore, Madam President, I believe I should withdraw for

the moment to compose this new section, together with the other
proponents.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo is still
on the floor. So, if there are any other remarks, let us concentrate first on the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo.
We are not voting on any amendment this morning. Actually, this is a
freewheeling discussion of proposed amendments.
MR. TINGSON: My amendment would be in connection with the amendment
of Commissioner Romulo as further amended by Commissioner Villegas.
May I state my amendment.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I am impressed by the original statement of
the Committee which states: Social justice, as a social, economic, political,
moral imperative. In the light of the good remarks of the Chairman of the
Steering Committee yesterday that what we are stating here are goals,
ideals and
objectives and that probably we are to reach the ultimate or the immediate, I
wonder if Commissioner Romulo will accept my amendment. I propose that
we
reword the first sentence of Section 1 to read: THE STATE SHALL PURSUE THE
MORAL IMPERATIVE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT.
Originally, the Committee wanted to put under moral imperatives social,
economic and political goals. So my amendment would be: THE STATE SHALL
PURSUE THE
MORAL IMPERATIVE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Romulo say?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I regret I cannot accept the amendment
because if the Commissioner will notice in the original statement of the
Committee,
moral is only one of the imperatives. Hence, if we accept that, then we will
be restricting the sense of this paragraph. I feel that social justice by

now has a definition that is understood, and what the Committee wants to do
is to apply social justice in all phases of national development.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I would like to be satisfied by the answer of
the Committee. My understanding here is that since moral imperative is
preceded by the article a, then social, economic and political are all
categorized as a moral imperative; otherwise they would have said moral
imperatives. That is why I am wondering if my amendment would not
strengthen the Gentlemans amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo has already stated his position.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized. Is the
Commissioners amendment in relation to the proposed amendment of
MR. DE CASTRO: No, Madam President. We cannot follow the discussion of
the amendments because we do not have a copy of what the proponent is
trying to
propose. I suggest that we be given copies of proposed amendments so that
we can participate in the discussion of this important subject matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have asked the Secretariat to prepare copies for
distribution to the different Members.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President. .
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: This is in connection with Commissioner Romulos
proposed amendment. I think the amendment thereto of Commissioner
Villegas could be
accommodated as a new provision after Section 9 which would attend to the
needs of small-scale industries. This is the underground economy. We also
propose
to include a new provision on agricultural workers who have also been left
out. Perhaps we could formulate it afterwards. So, the amendment of
Commissioner
Villegas could be deleted from the first section.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: By the way, may we request all Members who have already
proposed amendments to give copies to the Secretary-General so that they
can be
reproduced and distributed?
MR. REGALADO: May I offer a further amendment, a very simple one, to the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo. I propose to insert the word
CULTURAL
after SOCIAL, so that it will read: BY REDUCING SOCIAL CULTURAL,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUITIES, because there are such things also
as cultural
inequities especially when we consider our indigenous cultural
communities.
MR. ROMULO: I accept, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I think I should now retire and rewrite this
section together with the amendments I have accepted, and then ask the
Secretariat to circulate it so that somebody else can proceed with Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. By the way, we have already stated that the Committee
will be given time to go over all these proposed amendments. We are not
expecting
the Committee to give its official reaction right away, unless there are
individual Members who would like to react on these amendments. So, we
can now
proceed to the next proposal.
recognized for Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Section 2. Is there any other amendment or version for
Section 1?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be
recognized for Section 1.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am in favor of the proposed amendment of

Commissioner Villegas with regard to promoting, enhancing or encouraging
private
enterprise and economic activity, because that is the real cause that will give
social justice substance and enhance human dignity. So I do not exactly
agree to transposing it to a lesser position in the section. In my estimation,
such private initiative and economic activity will lead to productivity or
to the growth of economic wealth which will underlie the blessings of social
justice.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, all the proponents are now pooling all
their amendments. They are now conferring with one another. May I ask that
Commissioner Davide be recognized for his amendment on Section 2?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on the Romulo proposal, I am requesting a
deferment of the consideration of Section 2, because my original intendment
was to
combine Sections 1 and 2. It would depend on the result of the Romulo
proposal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to know if the Committee has copies of
Commissioner Davides proposed amendment.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, it might be incorporated eventually in the Romulo proposal.
THE PRESIDENT: So, is Commissioner Davide submitting this formally so it
can be taken up by the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: After the Romulo proposal is approved, one way or the other.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized for his
amendment to Section 2.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am one of those who are proposing an
MR. SARMIENTO: I request Commissioner Romulo to consider my amendment
which is to use INCREMENTS THEREOF instead of fruits. So, line 16 will
read:
acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property and INCREMENTS
THEREOF.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Romulo yet.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Romulo has already accepted my
amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: But what is his amendment? This is the problem of the
Chair. The Chair is equally confused. We are not given copies of the proposed
amendments, so how can we be expected to participate even just by way of
making our own comments?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that we proceed to Section 3
because the proponents are pooling their amendments on Sections 1 and 2
and
preparing a draft thereof?
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we proceed to Section 3?
recognized for his amendment on Section 3.
THE PRESIDENT: May I have a stenographer right here beside me?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment will actually cover Sections 3 and 4
or a combination of both. The same is contained in the mimeographed copies
of this
amendment.
It shall read:
SECTION _.IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO:
(A) AFFORD FULL PROTECTION TO LABOR, BOTH DOMESTIC AND OVERSEAS,
ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, AND TO PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT AND
EQUALITY OF EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES REGARDLESS OF SEX, AGE, RACE, CULTURE, CREED OR
POLITICAL AFFILIATION;
B) GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS OF ANY CLASS OR KIND TO SELFORGANIZATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATIONS, PEACEFUL
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR
THE MUTUAL BENEFIT, WELFARE OR AID, SECURITY OF TENURE, JUST AND
HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK, AND TO PARTICIPATION IN POLICY AND
DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS;
C) PROMOTE VOLUNTARY MODES OF SETTLING DISPUTES BETWEEN
WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, INCLUDING CONCILIATIONS, AND ENFORCE
MUTUAL COMPLIANCE THEREOF;
D) REGULATE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS IN A
MANNER THAT RECOGNIZES THE MUTUALITY OF THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS
TO JUST RETURNS OF THEIR LABOR AND
EMPLOYERS TO REALIZE THEIR GROWTH POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE
RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS; AND
E) PROVIDE FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION BETWEEN WORKERS AND
EMPLOYERS IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE STABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR
ANY OF ITS AGENCIES, OR THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, GENERAL WELFARE OR COMMON GOOD IS SERIOUSLY
AFFECTED.
THE PRESIDENT: Have copies been distributed to the Commissioners?
THE PRESIDENT: Do all the Commissioners have copies of this proposed
amendment of Commissioner Davide?
MR. NOLLEDO: I am sorry I came late. I also submitted an amendment
combining Section 1 with Section 2. I would like to present it before the
Committee for
consideration if the Chair would permit me.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take that up later; we will settle first the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Davide. We are not voting on the amendments
right
now.
Does Commissioner Davide desire to explain his proposed amendment by

substitution?
This is just to enumerate the duty of the State with respect to labor. Aside
from the Committees proposal in the matter of full employment and equality
of
employment opportunities, I have added RACE AND POLITICAL AFFILIATION.
This is very important because in the Philippines we have two classes of
citizens:
the natural-born and the naturalized Filipinos who may belong to a particular
nationality or race, and so the Constitution, insofar as labor is concerned,
must also assure protection to those citizens belonging to another race. The
inclusion of political affiliation is necessary in order to avoid the
possibility that by reason of ones political affiliation, he may be
discriminated upon.
On another point, this Member has, in effect, deleted the phrase, including
the right to strike, because it is my sentiment and it is my view that
strike is already included in concerted activities. Jurisprudence is well
settled that strike is only one of the means of indicating or demonstrating a
concerted act or activity of labor, so that would not be necessary. As a
matter of fact, to include the phrase including the right to strike may only
provide greater room for misapprehension and misunderstanding because it
may be believed that the State would no longer have the right in the exercise
of
its police powers to prevent strikes in certain areas. By excluding the phrase
including the right to strike, we can really strike a balance where in
some instances, like in cases involving the exercise of purely constituent or
governmental functions, we leave to Congress the authority to determine
whether strikes may be allowed there or not. But excluding that particular
phrase does not mean that we already deleted or rather prohibited the right
to
strike because, as I said, it is included in concerted activities.
This proposal also recommends the restoration of compulsory arbitration in
certain cases. This is again in the light of settled provisions of the 1935 and
the 1973 Constitutions which I believe must be restored because the State
may not at all be given that exclusive power in certain cases. Its deletion in
the proposed provision might again be the subject of a misapprehension or
misunderstanding that since the same authority was vested in the 1935 and
in the
1973 Constitutions, its deletion may amount to a prohibition of that
particular right. So, in order to preserve the very meritorious intent of
compulsory
arbitration, it is proposed that we retain that particular power.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask Commissioner Davide two questions? When the
Commissioner refers to the equality of employment opportunities regardless
of race,
would that mean that a noncitizen would be deemed under our laws to have
the same opportunities for employment as a citizen?
MR. DAVIDE: What I added are only the words RACE and POLITICAL
AFFILIATION.
BISHOP BACANI: But suppose a person is of another race and he is not a
Filipino citizen, will the matter of citizenship be the more preponderant
consideration?
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely I included the word RACE because there might be a
distinction between a natural-born Filipino citizen and a naturalized citizen.
So
to be very clear about it, we should add the word RACE.
BISHOP BACANI: So that is the point of the Commissioner?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: May I be clarified also on the deletion of the words
including the right to strike. Even with that deletion, is the Commissioner
nevertheless really including the right to strike?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, as a matter of fact, the language of the original proposal
already indicates that that right is there. So it is included already in the
phrase concerted activities.
MR. RODRIGO: May I ask a question of the proponent.
In the 1973 Constitution, the duty of the State to afford protection to labor is
found on Section 9, Article II under Declaration of Principles and State
Policies which reads:
The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and
equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex,
race, or
creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State
shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may
provide for compulsory arbitration.
We do not have yet the report of our Committee on Declaration of Principles.
Where does the Commissioner think this particular provision should be
incorporated? Should it be in the Article on Social Justice or, as indicated in
the 1973 Constitution, in the Article on Declaration of Principles and
State Policies?
MR. DAVIDE: In the light of the special importance that we are giving now to
social justice and the necessity of emphasizing the scope and role of social
justice in national development, I strongly believe that it should be here in
the Article on Social Justice and not just in the Article on Declaration of
Principles and State Policies.
MR. RODRIGO: I think the Chairman of the Committee on Declaration of
Principles and State Policies is Commissioner Rosales and the Vice Chairman
is
Commissioner Tingson. So, they can just get together and decide where it
will be included.
MR. ROSALES: It should be in the Article on Social Justice. In the 1973
Constitution, there was no separate article on social justice. There is such an
article now, and we concede this declaration in favor of the Article on Social
Justice.
MS. QUESADA: I would just like to make some comments on the presentation
of Commissioner Davide.
The body must know that we have had about four public hearings involving
labor. In all these public hearings, the people have been very strong in their
position that their right to strike should be really spelled out in the
Constitution. As a matter of fact, they did comment that in other
Constitutions of
the world, such right has been very explicitly mentioned.
The Constitution of Uruguay says:
The strike is declared to be a right of trade unions. Regulations should be

made governing its exercise and effect on that basis.
The Constitution of Argentina under Article XIV, the Declaration of Rights and
Guarantees, states:
Trade Unions or gremios are hereby guaranteed the right to conclude
collective labor agreements; the right to resort to conciliation and arbitration
and
the right to strike.
The Constitution of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus states that:
(1) Employees shall have the right to collective agreement and to strike in
their relations with employers for the purpose of protecting and improving
their economic and social status. (2) Their exercise of the right to strike may
be regulated by law for the purpose only of safeguarding the security of
the State or the Constitutional order of the public order or the rights and
liberties guaranteed by this Constitution to any person.
The Constitution of Costa Rica under Article LXI thereof states:
The right of employers to lock out and of workers to strike is recognized,
except in public services, in accordance with provisions of law and
regulations
on the subject.
So, would Commissioner Davide be amenable to the retention of the earlier
provision which includes the right to strike, except that we provide a clause
that would spell out that the law would provide limitations?
MR. DAVIDE: I would be willing to accept that proposal and stand that, in one
of the Constitutions referred to, excluded in the right to strike are those
in the public services.
If the Committee would be amenable to putting INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE, EXCEPT IN MATTERS INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVICES, I would have no
objection.
MS. QUESADA: But that would run counter to the general spirit or intention of
the Article on the Civil Service which did not specify whether it would grant
such right to civil servants. According to Commissioner Foz, they were silent
on this. Although civil servants have the right to self-organization, that
Article did not spell out whether or not they have the right to strike.
MR. DAVIDE: That would not really be inconsistent because of the silence of
the Article on the Civil Service. So, I think the proper area really for the
spelling out of the exception will be here; that is, if the thinking of the
Committee is to exclude public services from the scope of strike. As a matter
of fact, personally I would even say that it should apply only in instances
which would involve the exercise of governmental functions or constituent
functions.
MS. QUESADA: The earlier proviso in the original draft only excluded the
Armed Forces and the civil defense.
MR. DAVIDE: I would rather opt for functions involving exercise of constituent
functions or governmental functions.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Committee is also divided on this
issue. So, I would suggest that we leave the discussion on that particular
point. When
the proper time comes, we can just throw that matter on the floor.
MR. RODRIGO: Since the Committee is going to study this matter, I would like
to add a point.
If I heard Commissioner Quesada correctly, she read one of the provisions of
a constitution in Latin America. In mentioning strikes, she also mentioned
lockouts. So, that is something which should also be studied by the
Committee. I think during the interpellations, this was brought out by one of
the
Commissioners, that if we guarantee the right to strike, should we not also
protect or guarantee the right to lock out? I am just submitting that for the
study of the Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Foz be
recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, my proposed amendment would only affect the
last sentence of Section 4. It would actually be rearranged, but it is not a
matter
of style because some substantive ideas are sought to be incorporated. My
proposed amendment is as follows: THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN
LABOR AND CAPITAL, RECOGNIZE VOLUNTARY MODES OF RESOLVING LABOR

OR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES, ENSURE MUTUAL COMPLIANCE THEREWITH AND
PROVIDE FOR COMPULSORY
ARBITRATION ONLY IN NATIONAL INTEREST DISPUTES. Then another sentence
follows: THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE PRIMACY OF THE RIGHT OF LABOR TO
ITS SHARE OF THE
FRUITS OF PRODUCTION AND THE CORRESPONDING RIGHT OF CAPITAL TO A
REASONABLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
Madam President, may I give a brief explanation of my proposed
amendment. This clause, to the effect that the State shall regulate the
relations between
labor and capital, is actually nothing new. This is still the subject of a lot of
decisions and commentaries in the sense that the relations between labor
and capital are not merely contractual. This is something invested or
affected by public interest, and so this gives the State, through the
government, the
right to impose certain minimum regulations or rules to be followed by both
sides for the orderly relationship between them, so that the larger interest of
society or the community is not adversely affected. On the second phrase:
RECOGNIZE VOLUNTARY MODES OF RESOLVING LABOR OR INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTES, instead of
the word promote as contained in the draft provision of the Committee, I
would use the word RECOGNIZE to stress the fact that both sides, labor and
capital, are actually in a position to resort to certain methods on their own,
without intervention of the government, to peacefully and promptly resolve
whatever differences they have in their day-to-day relations and in their
long-term relations in the work scene. And because the government
recognizes
these voluntary modes of resolving disputes, then it is incumbent upon the
government to insure that both parties comply with what they have agreed
upon
which is actually the law between the parties.
As to compulsory arbitration, my amendment would limit it only in the socalled national interest disputes or cases. The phrase national interest
disputes is well recognized in our labor law jurisprudence as referring to
certain cases which affect the national interest way above the interest of
labor or capital. The last sentence is just a rewording of what is already
contained in the draft provision of the Committee. But just the same, I use
the
phrase RECOGNIZES THE PRIMACY OF THE RIGHT OF LABOR to give stress
to the primacy of the right of labor to share the fruits of production. I add the
words OF PRODUCTION after the word fruits, and, of course, the
corresponding right of capital to a reasonable return on investments.

MS. AQUINO: For Commissioner Foz, may I just clarify the intention of the
Committee in deleting the provision on compulsory arbitration to facilitate
the
harmonization of our interest. This is as far as the Committees intention is
concerned. I have initially discussed this with Commissioner Davide and he is
amenable likewise to delete a provision on compulsory arbitration on the firm
and strong commitment that the intention of an express provision on
voluntary
modes of settling disputes does not exclude the right of the State to provide
for compulsory arbitration in situations where it may be warranted such as
when it involves a threat to the national interest or to the national welfare.
Would the Commissioner not be amenable to the deletion of that provision
on
this strong commitment that the State, in any case, is not precluded from
providing for compulsory arbitration anyway?
MR. FOZ: We must remember that the provision on compulsory arbitration is
contained in both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. FOZ: If the new Constitution would no longer expressly provide for
compulsory arbitration, the implication might be that we are no longer
authorizing
or empowering the State to resort to compulsory arbitration as a means of
resolving labor or industrial disputes.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I sympathize with the difficulty of
Commissioner Foz, but if only to focus on the essentials, it will help us to be
reminded
that the provision in the 1935 Constitution, which is in the Article on General
Provisions, and the provision in the 1973 Constitution which is a section
in the Article on the Declaration of Principles are express provisos in terms of
may. Both say The State may provide. In other words, both in the 1935
and in the 1973 provisions, there was an implicit reservation of the right to
provide for compulsory arbitration. In fact, the jurisprudence would bear out
that the intention is to give preference and priority still to voluntary modes of
setting labor disputes. It is just that in the nature of a compulsory
arbitration which is, shall we say, direct interference of the State, there was
an explicit proviso to allow the State to interfere. However, even as there
is an omission of a proviso on voluntary modes in both the Constitutions, it
did not likewise exclude voluntary modes of settling labor disputes. What we
are proposing here in the new draft is a 180-degree turnabout, by voluntary

modes without precluding compulsory modes.
MR. FOZ: If that is the interpretation of the Committee, that while
emphasizing voluntary arbitration for solving labor and industrial disputes,
we do not
rule out completely the reserved authority and power of the government to
provide for compulsory arbitration, then I am amenable to delete the term
compulsory arbitration.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Madam President; I also thank the Commissioner.
MR. BENGZON: May we request Commissioner Foz to give his proposed
amendment to the Secretariat so that we can have it in the Committee.
MR. FOZ: I have submitted a copy to the Secretariat for action.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Commissioner Rodrigo invited our attention to Section 9 on the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the 1973 Constitution, which
reads:
The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and
equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities, regardless of sex,
race or
creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State
shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may
provide for compulsory arbitration.
According to Commissioner Rosales, the Chairman of the Committee on
Declaration of Principles and State Policies, because of this special Article on
Social
Justice, they would have no objection to transferring Section 9 under the
fundamental principles to a paragraph or to a section on social justice.
In my opinion, the Declaration of Principles is stronger than another
paragraph or section in the Constitution because these are fundamental
principles. My
suggestion is, after Section 1, whatever appears in Section 2 with regard to
labor, we just adopt Section 9 to cover the social justice on labor. I
understand that Commissioner Lerum, who is known for his concern for
labor, will have no objection to such a suggestion. In other words, instead of
rewriting Section 9 and making it much longer and more complicated, I
wonder if the Committee will consider the transposition of Section 9 of the
Article
on the Declaration of Principles to the Article on Social Justice.
MR. BENGZON: We will consider that, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I comment on the statement of
Commissioner Padilla?
MR. LERUM: I told the Commissioner that I am in favor of having that
incorporated in the Article on Social Justice, but it does not prevent the
inclusion
later on of other provisions. Actually, that provision is all-embracing, and I
think it covers several sections on social justice. So, my conformity is
that it could be a part of the Article on Social Justice.
MR. PADILLA: But if this provision, this Section 9 Declaration of Principles
is already all-embracing, pursuant thereto, regarding details or some
measures to implement those principles, it will be for the Congress to enact
the measures as suggested in the Romulo amendment to Section 1. We
declare the
fundamentals or the objectives, and let us not burden the Constitution with
so many additional words or additional paragraphs. Make it simple, of course,
with the understanding that the Congress may always enact measures to
implement these fundamental principles and objectives.
MR. BENGZON: We will consider, Madam President, in the Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized for an
anterior amendment.
I would like to express my gratitude for this opportunity of presenting an

anterior amendment.
I came late, Madam President, because I was snarled in a traffic jam at EDSA.
I am presenting this amendment for serious consideration of the Committee,
and the purpose of this amendment is to reflect the contents of the entire
report of the Committee, and it is to the credit of the Committee that I am
reproducing many of the words used by them. I hope that they will not be
unduly
influenced by the Romulo amendment. I would like to give emphasis to the
words regulating property because I did not find them in the Romulo
amendment.
I think the concept of property articulated even by the Vatican many years
ago has already changed. The demands of the times indicate that we have to
abandon the usual concept of property contemplated in the 1935
Constitution and the 1973 Constitution.
Before I present my amendment, I would like to cite for the record some
statements indicating the stand of the Vatican, of the Pope, on the nature of
property.
In the documents of Vatican II, it is stated:
By its very nature, private property has a social quality deriving from the law
of the communal purpose of earthly goods. If the social quality is
overlooked, property often becomes a source of greed and of serious
disturbance. Thus, to those who attack the concept of private property, a
pretext is
given for calling the right itself into question.
In another paragraph, also from the documents of Vatican II, it is stated:
God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human
being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity,
creative
good should abound for them on a reasonable basis. Whatever the forms of
ownership may be, as adopted to the legitimate institutions of people,
according
to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to
the universal purpose for which creative goods are meant.
In using them, therefore, a man should regard his lawful possessions not
merely as his own but also as common property, in the sense that they
should
accrue to the benefit of not only himself but of others.
My amendment consists of combining Sections 1 and 2 of the report of the
Committee on Social Justice, because I think Section 2 is merely a sequel to
Section 1 and, therefore, Sections 1 and 2 must go together.
I have reproduced many of the words of the Committee.
I would like the Commission to know that the Supreme Court of the
Philippines, in the case of de la Cruz vs. Paras, on July 25, 1983, said that
regulation
does not mean control. There is no control involved- there is no prohibition
involved. So, regulation for the common good is an expression that should
find
acceptance in modern Filipino society.
So, Section 1, as amended, should read: Social Justice, as a social,
economic, political AND moral imperative DESIGNED TO PROTECT AND
ENHANCE THE
INALIENABLE RIGHT TO HUMAN DIGNITY AS WELL AS TO PROMOTE THE
COMMON GOOD shall be CONSIDERED BY the State in national development.
To this end, THE
Congress shall give the highest priority to the reduction of social, economic
and political inequities BY REGULATING THE ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP, USE
AND
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY AND ITS FRUITS, ESTABLISHING INDEPENDENT
AND SELF-RELIANT SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STRUCTURES,
AFFORDING PROTECTION TO LABOR,
WOMEN AND MINORS, UPLIFTING THE CONDITION OF THE POOR,
PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF ALL THE CITIZENS AND RESPECTING THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES.
Madam President, this provision reflects the entire contents of the report of
the Committee on Social Justice. We will notice that the definition of
social justice by Jose P. Laurel in Calalang vs. Williams talked only of social
and economic structures or aspects. I commend the Committee on Social
Justice for adding the political aspect as well. When Commissioner Regalado
asked about the legal aspect, I think it is already included in the political
aspect.
There are some good points in the Romulo amendment such as respect for
human dignity and distribution of political power. I did not find the word
political; I found only the word power. So, I would be happier if the
Romulo amendment will incorporate the power of the State to regulate
property of
any kind for the common good.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Committee has more than enough
enlightenment from Bible quotations. We will consider the . . .
MR. ROMULO: Just a point of clarification, Madam President. Actually, I did not
amend Section 2. I was only concerned with Section 1. So, as far as I am
concerned, Section 2 is still in the draft.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we understand that, Commissioner Romulo.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized for his amendment on Section 5.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, before we proceed to Section 5, may I be
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to state some observations on Section 3, on labor,
which I would like to put on record because these have not been brought out
in
earlier discussions. This is the inclusion in Section 3 of the State affording full
protection to labor, both domestic and overseas. I would like to
highlight the problem of Filipino overseas workers.
As a matter of fact, in our Committee, there was a proposal to have a
separate section, particularly for the problems of overseas workers. But since
we
wanted to be brief but broad, we covered this as part of the provision on
Section 3. The original intent was really for the State to recognize the right
and welfare of Filipino overseas workers, and for the State to exercise firm
control over manpower export and promote bilateral labor agreements with
countries of employment. There is recognition that the problems of overseas
or migrant workers are distinct and they have characteristics entirely
different from domestic labor, more particularly under the social environment
in which these migrant workers operate.
So, this section is with the understanding that the State should afford special
protection to our overseas workers who are not covered by Labor Code
provisions precisely because they are operating in a foreign social

environment.
This is just for the record, so that legislators will later on take note of this
particular intention.
MR. DAVIDE: This is on Section 5, Madam President. This is an amendment by
substitution.
MR. OPLE: Anterior amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the anterior amendment of Commissioner Ople? Is it
on Section 4?
MR. DAVIDE: There is still a pending amendment to Sections 3 and 4 which
the Committee is still studying.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Commissioner Ople, is it in connection with Section 4,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Because no action is being taken by the Committee. We are
just receiving amendments.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I will most graciously yield to Commissioner Davide if he
wants to take precedence, but this will probably take just a minute of the
Commissions time.
MR. DAVIDE: My amendment is with the Committee already.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Commissioner Davide. Thank you, Madam President.
Actually, this amendment may not be necessary at all if the Committee,
through Commissioner Aquino, in particular, can give a satisfactory answer.
In connection with Section 4, the Committee may have overlooked a major
source of government intervention in labor disputes, usually in favor of
management
and against labor. I refer to judicial injunctions against strikes. Both the
National Labor Relations Commission and the courts routinely issue
injunctions
against strikers with a view to terminating them by firing especially with
respect to the right of the freedom of egress and ingress and warnings of
violations of law in the picket lines, all of which have the effect of judicial
intimidation of workers picketing a firm, which means that the hand of the
law, in this case, an injunction by the courts, is seen as repressive of the
right to picket. I therefore would like to inquire whether the authors of this
Section 4 may have taken this into account and whether they agree that we
should add a sentence or insert a new section which will prohibit the courts
from
enjoining strikes.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, on behalf of the Committee, may I reply to
Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Aquino may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: I would have a lot of difficulty accepting his proposal for an
expressed provision on the prohibition against court injunctions. In the first
instance, it is a generally accepted principle of labor- management relations
that the court cannot by judicial fiat enjoin labor disputes by way of
return-to-work orders. Besides, there is a statutory provision in the Labor
Code on this matter which prohibits courts from enjoining labor disputes.
MR. OPLE: Which the courts routinely disregard.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, in fact, the origin of the statute is the Norris-La Guardia
Act.
My problem is that an expressed proviso which attains the level of a
constitutional provision might unduly stymie the possibilities of settlement of
disputes which would involve national interest and national welfare.
However, I would like to assure Commissioner Ople that when we say there
should be
preference for voluntary modes of settling disputes, the position is to reduce
to the barest minimum State intervention and State interference in the
settlement of labor-management conflicts.
MR. OPLE: And this includes court injunctions.
MS. AQUINO: This includes court injunctions.
MR. OPLE: If that is the intendment of the Committee and of the Commission,
then I will not press this amendment, Madam President.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: I thank the Gentleman.

THE PRESIDENT. What is the pleasure of Commissioner Lerum?
MR. LERUM: May I make a comment? Under the Labor Code, the courts are
prohibited from issuing injunctions. The injunctions that Commissioner Ople
is
talking about are injunctions issued by the Ministry of Labor. During the
discussion of Cabinet Bill No. 45 which became B.P. Blg. 130, we objected to
the
power of the Minister of Labor to issue injunctions ordering striking workers
to return to work. We objected to this strenuously, and we were even brought
to Malacaang about this provision. What I am trying to say is that the
injunctions were not issued by the court.
MR. OPLE: Commissioner Lerum is referring to injunctions issued by the
NLRC.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us allow Commissioner Lerum to finish his sentence.
MR. LERUM: May I continue please? The other subject of injunction that the
Gentleman is talking about is this: Whenever there is a strike and the gates
of
the factories are blocked or sometimes padlocked, laborers who are not
involved in the strike because most of the strikes are carried out by
minority
unions have to get injunctions in order that they can get in the factory.
That is the problem we had and that is also the problem at present. The
problem
then is that the Minister of Labor had been allowing this kind of obstruction.
We have no objections to an injunction to remove the obstructions in
violation of the law.
I hope Minister Ople will remember that when we talked about Cabinet Bill
No. 49 which became B.P. Blg. 227, I objected to the provision which says
that
ingress and egress to a strike-bound plant should not be obstructed. I said
that that was unnecessary because that was already covered by the Penal
Code. I
said that if we put this provision in the law, the laborers will feel that the
Batasang Pambansa is the author of this provision when, in fact, that is
already covered by the Penal Code.
So, my point is that under the Labor Code, the courts are already prohibited
from issuing injunctions.
MR. OPLE: Thank you for that reply.

MR. LERUM: What should be the subject now is the injunction issued by the
Ministry of Labor.
MR. OPLE: Yes, thank you for that reply.
Of course, I exonerate Commissioner Lerum from any blemish of B.P. Blg.
227, which we helped put together during the Batasang Pambansa days.
Commissioner
Aquino and I took cognizance earlier that the Labor Code does explicitly
prohibit court injunctions against strikes. But this is not the same as saying
that this is not ignored. At the same time, Commissioner Lerum is right that
the more likely source of injunctions is the National Labor Relations
Commission, which is the quasi-judicial body attached to the Ministry of
Labor empowered to issue injunctions.
The trend of my questioning, directed to the Committee, precisely embraces
the injunctions issued both by the regular courts and the National Labor
Relations Commission. The way I understood the reply of the Committee,
through Commissioner Aquino, is that under Section 4 now, even the
National Labor
Relations Commission should not issue injunctions. It is on that
understanding that I withdraw my proposed amendment, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may I be allowed to make a short comment?
MR. FOZ: I think it is safe to say that under existing law referring to the
Labor Code the entire range of labor-management relations is already out
of
judicial competence. There is no single case or instance of a labor dispute
which the courts or the judiciary is allowed by existing law to resolve. Under
our provision here, the proposed Section 4, there is nothing to prevent the
Congress from changing all that so that the judiciary may be empowered by
Congress to provide that labor cases may be or shall be decided by the
regular courts. But under existing law, the Labor Code, no courts are
authorized to
resolve a labor dispute.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized?

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President. This is just an amendment to
Section 5.
MS. AQUINO: May I be allowed some kind of a redirect on the matter because
the manifestations of Commissioner Foz are fraught with danger that might
be
susceptible to misinterpretations of the mandate of the Constitution on the
labor provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: I am in full agreement with the first part of his manifestation
and it is correct to say that to a certain extent the spectrum of
labor-management relations has been virtually taken out of the jurisdiction of
the court, except when there is a specific law which vests in the court
jurisdiction over that certain matter. However, it is not correct to say that
Congress may at any time overturn the constitutional mandate on the
sanctity
of labor-management relations and the primacy of the voluntary modes of
settling labor disputes over the compulsory modes. It will in effect disturb the
established interpretation which we have put on record to enrich the
intention of the provisions now being proposed. It should remain that the
Committees
intention is to really vest authority and jurisdiction over the resolution of
labor disputes in the various modalities of voluntary and free collective
bargaining reducing to the barest minimum State interference in the form of
compulsory arbitration as to even prohibit court injunctions or injunctions
issued by the Ministry of Labor.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, in response to the statement made by
Commissioner Aquino, there is nothing to prevent Congress from passing a
law authorizing the
courts to handle compulsory arbitration.
Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: May I proceed to Section 5?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide now proceed without any
interruption?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment would be by substitution. I already

submitted to the Committee the proposal. It reads: THE STATE SHALL
UNDERTAKE A
GENUINE AGRARIAN AND LAND REFORM PROGRAM UNDER WHICH FARMERS
AND FARMHOLDERS, WITH PRIORITY TO THE LANDLESS, MAY OWN
INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY THE LANDS
THEY TILL. SUCH PROGRAM SHALL COVER ALL AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH,
SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS CONGRESS MAY PRESCRIBE TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT CONSERVATION,
ECOLOGICAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, SHALL BE EQUITABLY
DISTRIBUTED, UPON PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION IN RESPECT TO
PRIVATE LANDS.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, minsan pa gusto kong ipaliwanag ang
agrarian and natural resources reforms bago ko sagutin si Commissioner
Davide upang
maiwasan ang kaguluhan sa isang napakaselan at napakahalagang seksyon
sa ating Saligang Batas.
Kung sinasabi nating si Kristo ay liberating dahil ang api ay lalaya at ang
mga bihag ay mangaliligtas, sinabi rin ni Commissioner Felicitas Aquino na
kung
ang history ay liberating, dapat ding maging liberating ang Saligang Batas.
Ang magpapalaya sa atin ay ang agrarian and natural resources reforms.
The primary, foremost and paramount principles and objectives are
contained on lines 19 to 22: primacy of the rights of farmers and
farmworkers to own
directly or collectively the lands they till. Ito ang kauna-unahan at
pinakamahalagang prinsipyo at layunin ng isang tunay na reporma sa lupa
na ang
nagbubungkal ng lupa ay maging may-ari nito.
Ano naman ang ibig sabihin ng farmworker? Dito nagkakaroon ng
problema. Alam natin na ang farmers ang tiller of the soil. Ayon sa Kilusang
Magbubukid ng
Pilipinas, dalawa ang ibig sabihin ng magbubukid: tiller of the soil at
manggagawang bukid o farm worker. Kaya ang ibig sabihin ng magbubukid
ay farmer
at farm worker; to own directly means magmay-ari. Ang ibig sabihin nito ay
maaari kong ariin ang isang ektaryang lupa, halimbawa.
Sa salitang farmworkers, hindi kasama rito ang hired laborer, ang seasonal
laborer at ang mga sakada. Ano ang ibig sabihin ng farm workers? Ito ay ang
mga regular farm workers. Mas mahalaga ang kanyang tungkulin sa
produksyon kung ihahambing sa hired laborer. Ano ang ibig sabihin ng
collectively? Ang
ibig sabihin nito ay ang sama-samang paggawa batay sa tenant
prerogatives; sa tanim tulad ng asukal, pinya at saging; at sa sukat ng lupa
sapagkat kung ito
ay maliit, makakamit ng mga magbubukid ang economies of scale sa samasamang paggawa. Iyan ang ibig sabihin ng collectively.
Tungkol naman sa sinasabing just distribution of all agricultural lands, ang
ibig sabihin nito ay tuluyan nang wawasakin ang tinatawag na land
monopoly.
On lines 23 and 24, the term retention limits ay nangangahulugang
binibigyan ng proteksiyon ang maliit na panginoon ng lupa lalo na ang
owner-cultivator
na maiiwanan ng lupang maaari niyang sakahin. Ang pangalawang
napakahalagang nagbibigay proteksiyon sa panginoon ng lupa ay ang fair
and progressive
system of compensation. Ito ay hindi just compensation na
nangangahulugang fair market value sa jurisprudence. Ang batas ay
pasulong at hindi paatras sa
ilalim ng right of preemption and right of redemption. Ang ibig sabihin nito ay
kailangan ang reasonable capacity of the tenant to pay. Ayon sa mga linyang
23 at 24, kapag maliit ang lupa, malaki ang halaga nito; at habang lumalaki
ang lupa, lumiliit ang halaga nito upang mabigyan ng proteksiyon ang
tenant-beneficiaries.
Ang Section 6 ay nagsasabi ng mga component ng agrarian reform; hindi
sapat lamang ang agrarian reform.
MR. DAVIDE: My amendment is only on Section 5 yet.
MR. TADEO: Kung maaari lamang ipaliliwanag ko munang lahat.
Magpapaliwanag muna ako upang malutas ang kaguluhan sa dalawang araw
nating pagtatalakayan. Ito
ang layunin ko.
Ang ibig sabihin ng Section 6 ay may mga component ang agrarian reform
gaya ng farmers and farm workers participation in planning, organizing and
management of the program, plus appropriate technical assistance,
adequate financial and marketing assistance. Ito ang mga component ng
isang matagumpay na
programa.
Ang Section 7 ay tungkol sa pagbibigay o disposisyon ng ibang natural
resources, public domain and public lands sa tatlong milyong tao. Ito ay ang
pagpapatupad ng prinsipyong land for the landless.
Bumalik tayo ngayon sa Section 5. Gaya ng sinabi ko, nawawala rito ang
primacy of the rights of farmers and farm workers. Inalis na ba ng Ginoo ang
land
reform?
MR. DAVIDE: By the way, I would like to make a correction. Instead of FARM
HOLDERS, it should be FARMWORKERS.
MR. TADEO: Iminungkahi ng Ginoo na tanggalin na ang natural resources
subalit isinama namin ito sa kadahilanang saan natin dadalhin ang tatlo
hanggang
apat na milyong landless agricultural workers?
MR. DAVIDE: That is on the title only, not on Section 5.
MR. TADEO: Hindi na kasi ginamit ng Ginoo ang land reform; mas tamang
salita ang agrarian reform. Ang ibig sabihin ng land reform ay problema sa
lupa
lamang; ang ibig sabihin ng agrarian reform is the land in relation to farmers
and farm workers.
MR. TADEO: Kayat sa agrarian reform, kasama na rito ang relasyon ng lupa
sa tao at sa lipunan, sa pangkalahatan. Subalit nakita kong nawala ang una.
Iminungkahi rin ng Ginoo ang mga salitang MAY OWN subalit parang
nahihinaan ako rito, hindi potent. Dapat ay MUST OWN dahil hindi potent ang
MAY.
Inalis din ng Ginoo ang retention limits. Sa akin ay napakahalaga ng
retention limits. Kapag ang panginoon ng lupa ay hindi nagbubungkal ng
lupa, hindi
siya magkakaroon ng retention limit. Ang ibig nating sabihin ay subject to
such limitation, mayroong karapatan ang owner-cultivator na maiwan ang
pagsasaka.
MR. DAVIDE: May I respond now?
Madam President, the proposal would even strengthen the concept of reform.
I insisted on the addition of LAND because there is really a distinction
between
agrarian reform and land reform. Obviously, agrarian reform will relate only
to instances of lands where we have somebody working there who is not the
owner of the property. But in land reform, we allow the distribution even of
public lands to the landless, or to those who are qualified to acquire,
especially to farm workers and farmers who do not own their own land or
who are only working on anothers land. So, we broaden the effect of land
and
agrarian reforms because, I repeat, technically speaking, there is a
distinction a wide distinction between agrarian reform on the one hand,
and
ordinary land reform on the other hand.
Secondly, in this particular case, we did not delete the concept of the
primacy of the rights of farmers and farm workers. In other words, this only
confirms the existence of the right, as worded; it is confirmatory of that right.
There is no need to reemphasize that right because that right is
conceded, and it now becomes the duty of the State to undertake these
genuine and authentic land and agrarian reforms. We do not need to state
retention
limits because in the course of the interpellations, Commissioner Tadeo
always emphasized that it will be left to the Congress. So, we will leave it to
the Congress. I am sure that the matter of retention would be among those
to be taken up, especially taking into account the provisions on the national
patrimony with respect to public lands and privately owned lands.
Under my proposal, we do not even compel the payment of just and
progressive compensation if it would be for public lands. The State would
have the sole
authority, the discretion even, to distribute these lands freely. But under the
original proposal, the farmers and farm workers are required to pay just
and progressive compensation even for public lands. Under my proposal, we
leave it to the State; we leave it to the Congress to decide whether to require
payment for it or not. But with respect to private lands, we should not go
against the mandate of the Bill of Rights on just compensation. After all, it
would be the State that will expropriate; it is the State that will pay, and it is
now for the State to determine how reimbursement of such payments will
be made by the farmers or the farm workers to the government. So, it should
not be said that I am trying to delimit or diminish the impact of the original
proposal; I am even helping broaden its impact.
MR. TADEO: Nagpapasalamat ako kay Commissioner Davide.
Marahil ay mayroon tayong suliranin dito. Ang pag-uusapan natin dito ay
iyong natural resources o land. Palagay ko, ito ang magiging problema natin.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. That should belong to the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony, a copy of which I brought with me. I believe that the proper area
for
this would really be the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. I have
here Committee Report No. 24 of the Committee on the National Economy
and
Patrimony. I believe that the objectives of the Committee on Social Justice
are all embodied in the proposed Article on National Economy and Patrimony
which is even broader in effect. So, we have to give due recognition also to
the proposed Article on National Economy and Patrimony. I understand that
Commissioner Villegas would support this particular view that the provisions
in the proposed Article on National Economy and Patrimony would even be
broader than what is recommended. So, we should delete natural resources
reform and transfer it to the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. TADEO: Iilan na lamang ang hindi natin napagkakasunduan dito. Para
akong nahihinaan sa salitang may kayat baka maaari itong gawing MUST.
MR. DAVIDE: It can be changed to SHALL. I agree.
MR. TADEO: Maliwanag na nandito iyong primacy of the rights.
MR. DAVIDE: Certainly, it is inherent, it is conceded, and that is why we give
a mandate. We make it a duty on the part of the State to respect that
particular right.
MR. TADEO: Pinasasalamatan ko si Commissioner Davide.
MR. BENGZON: Am I to understand that perhaps the underlying reason why
the Gentleman used the word may is that he is envisioning a situation
where there
may be some farmers who may not wish to have . . .
MR. DAVIDE: To enjoy the benefit.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: That is really at the back of my mind but we can put it there as
SHALL.
MR. BENGZON: But that is the underlying reason why the Gentleman placed
the word.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, certainly, because we also cannot compel a farmer to avail
of the advantage or the right if he does not want to.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask a few questions for clarification
in the record?

MR. RODRIGO: On the fourth line of the proposed amendment, the two words
to own have been a subject of much misunderstanding in Central Luzon,
particularly in my home province of Bulacan. As was stated by Commissioner
Ople, I was one of the small landowners in Bulacan whose land was
subjected to
land reform; I agreed to relinquish those lands voluntarily. However, after the
tenants obtained their Land Transfer Certificates, most of them came back
to me, disillusioned, disappointed, even bitter. They said:
Hindi pala kami ang tunay na may-ari ng lupa. This has reference to the
word own. Hindi pala kami ang may-ari ng lupa. Ngayon lang namin
nalaman na
ito palang lupa ay hindi mamanahin ng aming mga anak kapag kami ay
namatay. Tulad ko halimbawa, sabi ng isa, lima ang aking anak. Itong
napunta sa
aking bukid ay dalawang ektarya lamang. Akala ko ba kapag ako ay
namatay, ito ay mamanahin ng aking limang anak; hindi pala.
Under the law, there is a system of primogeniture. If the recipient of this land
has five children and he dies, his five children will not automatically
inherit the land intestate. No, the procedure will be something like this. If
none of the five children wants to cultivate the land, then the land goes
back to the Samahang Nayon at pipiliin ng Samahang Nayon kung sino ang
taong pagbibigyan ng lupa upang ito ay sakahin.
If, let us say, out of the five children, three would like to cultivate the land,
only one would be entitled and that is the eldest. Primogeniture. May
nangyari nang ganyan. Yaong panganay ang nakakuha ng lupa. At ang
kadalasang sinasabi ng apat na mas nakababatang kapatid: Suklian mo
kami. Ikaw naman ang
nakakuha ng lupa ng mga magulang natin, kaya dapat ay suklian mo naman
kami. Kayat iyan ang mga problema.
That is why I want a clarification on the record of that word own because it
has been the cause of much disillusionment and misunderstanding. At the
same
time, paano naman kung maaari itong manahin ng mga anak subalit
dalawang ektarya lamang ang lupa at ang anak ay lima? Masyado nang
maliit ang magiging saka
ng bawat isa. At sa susunod na saling lahi o henerasyon, lalong liliit ito.
At hindi lang iyon. Sabi pa ng iba: Hindi pala kami ang may-ari kayat hindi
pala namin maipagbibili ang lupa. Subalit hindi naman dapat payagang
ipagbili
ito sapagkat baka maipagbili ito sa hindi naman nagbubungkal ng lupa.

Bukod pa rito, may mga nagsasabing: Hindi pala kami ang may-ari, gusto
sana naming
gawing residential lot ang kalahati ng lupa.
That is why I want to make clear in the Record the meaning of the word
own because in law as well as in common understanding, if one is the
owner, he has
certain rights the right to use, the right to sell, the right to inheritance,
and if one has children, the right to bequeath.
Kayat iyan ang gusto kong itanong. What are the rights and what are the
limitations of the rights of a farmer or a tiller who, let us say, becomes the
beneficiary of two hectares of riceland which, according to this provision, he
will own individually? Ano ang kahulugan ng own individually? What is
the scope of these words?
MR. TADEO: Pinasasalamatan ko si Commissioner Rodrigo sa napakagandang
katanungan.
Nagkataon kasing ang lupain ng Ginoo ay sa Plaridel. Ako ay taga-Plaridel at
nang ipairal ang reporma sa lupa ng panahon ni Macapagal, isa ako sa
kauna-unahang technician. Nais kong ipaliwanag sa Ginoo na kaya hindi
maaaring ipamana ang lupa ay dahil bawal ang land fragmentation.
MR. RODRIGO: Iyon nga ang sinabi ko.
MR. TADEO: Ayon sa RA 3844, ang economic family-size farm ay isang sukat
ng lupang kayang tugunan ang pangunahing pangangailangan ng isang
pamilyang may
lima hanggang anim na miyembro, gaya ng food, clothing, shelter, education
and hospitalization. Kapag pinayagan natin ang land fragmentation at
ipinamana
ang lupa sa limang anak, mawawala na ang economic family-size farm. Kaya
ito ay proteksiyon. Ang ibig sabihin nito, kapanabay ng land reform ang
pambansang
industriyalisasyon. Kung ipamamana ang lupa, masisira na ang konsepto ng
economic family-size farm.
Bakit naman hindi ito maaaring ipagbili? Ito ay proteksyon sa kanila upang
kapag sila ay nagipit ay hindi nila maipagbibili ang pinagkukunan nila ng
kanilang ikinabubuhay. Kayat binibigyan lamang natin sila ng proteksyon.
MR. RODRIGO: Maraming salamat.
Iyon din ang pagkakaalam ko. Gusto ko lang maging maliwanag ito sa Record
upang hindi masawi ang pag-asa ng mga magsasaka na ang akala ay
magiging sa
kanila ang pag-aari ng lupa. Nais nating liwanagin na hindi ito complete
ownership, limited rights lamang.
MR. TADEO: Salamat din po.
MR. PADILLA: I heard Commissioner Tadeo state that this proposal of a fair
and progressive system of compensation is a deviation from or is not in
conformity with the basic concept of just compensation. He mentioned
preemption or redemption. The Civil Code has recognized the rights of
preemption
and/or redemption in the law on sales in favor of a co-owner or an adjacent
owner when a co-owner sells his share in the co-ownership or has a ready
buyer
for his undivided share. The right of preemption is for one of the co-owners
to exercise that right before actual sale by offering to pay the same price
offered by a prospective buyer to a co-owner. The right of redemption is
exercised when the sale is consummated by a third person covering the
portion of a
co-owner of the undivided property. So, the rights of preemption and
redemption are based on actual sale of property, and that is the meaning of
just
compensation, where a person who wants to sell and another who wants to
buy can agree on the value of the property.
So, I want to clarify that these rights of preemption or redemption are not an
infringement of the principle of just compensation. They are, in fact, a
clear application of that principle of just compensation because there is a
prospective sale or an actual sale which is voluntary and the parties have
agreed on the value or the price thereof.
When this committee report says that the farmers or workers will own the
lands they till, I suppose we have to make a distinction, as Commissioner
Davide
said, between public lands and privately owned lands. If they are public
lands, there will be no problem because they are part of the lands of the
public
domain which, if alienable, can and should be distributed for more cultivation
and production. But with regard to privately owned lands, will this not
violate the principle in the Bill of Rights regarding the exercise of eminent
domain?
The three powers of government are taxation, police power and eminent
domain. The Bill of Rights provides:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
And Section 2 states: Private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation.
Article 435 of the Civil Code provides for the same principle that private
property may only be taken in the exercise of eminent domain by competent
authority for a public purpose and upon payment of just compensation. Some
people will say: If we pass this section on agrarian reform in the
Constitution, then it cannot be unconstitutional because it is in the
Constitution. But it violates the principle of private property and the proper
exercise of the right of eminent domain.
Should we not reconcile or harmonize both provisions? Otherwise, I am afraid
that a provision that private lands be owned by the farm workers will be
embodied erroneously in the 1986 Constitution, that provision will be
unconstitutional or, at least, an illegal exercise of the purported right of
eminent
domain or expropriation.
The 1935 Constitution permits the distribution of big landed estates. But that
provision, in many decisions of our courts, does not permit the distribution
or division of private property for disposition to or to be allocated in favor of
other persons because we will then be sacrificing the right of private
property which is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. I would like the Committee
to consider.
MR. TADEO: Ibig ko lamang sagutin ang Ginoo na sa ilalim ng 1973
Constitution, nakalagay sa Declaration of Principles, Article II, Section 6, ang
equitably diffuse property ownership. Pahayag ito ng isang paninindigan ng
isang saligang batas.
Tingnan natin ang social justice ayon sa Calalang vs. Williams case. Ang
sumusunod ang naging desisyon sa nabanggit na kaso:
But the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic
forces by the State, the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
adoption
by the government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all
the component elements of society through the maintenance of the proper

economic and social equilibrium . . .
Sinasabi rin natin sa salus populi est suprema lex, the voice of the people is
the supreme law.
Ayon sa pananaliksik ni Mahar Mangahas,
The new Constitution should recognize that the people cannot be compelled
to obey unjust laws or to acquiesce to action which are based on such unjust
laws.
Again, the voice of the people is the supreme law. It is the people, not the
law, who ultimately define social justice and how the law should be made
and,
wherever necessary, reformed to conform to the peoples consensus of
justice.
MR. PADILLA: Ang sinabi ng Ginoo, Madam President, speaks of all the
people, all the components of society, and salus populi est suprema lex, the
welfare
of the people is the supreme law. That is why the government, the State, has
the police power, in addition to taxation and eminent domain. Police power is
precisely to promote the general welfare, which the Committee has been
using as common good. But common good and general welfare is for all the
people, all
the components of society, not the privilege of one sector at the expense of
others. That is very important because we must have a just and humane
society.
We must protect and promote the rights of labor, workers, fishermen and
others. We have no objection to those principles of social justice but there
must
be, as the Calalang decision says, the equilibrium of all forces social,
economic, political, et cetera so that we may have stability, not anarchy
on
the one hand, nor despotism on the other.
Thank you.
MS. NIEVA: I thank Commissioner Padilla.
May we have any proposed amendment that the Gentleman may have. We
would like to have it in writing, if possible, because we will be discussing this
amendment this afternoon.
Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: I have not prepared an amendment because I feel that the
basic concepts on expropriating private property for even the deserving farm
workers
under a system of compulsory land expropriation, private land expropriation,
under a system of compulsory private land expropriation are, in my opinion,
illegal and unconstitutional.
MR. DAVIDE: I think the concern of Commissioner Padilla is well taken care of
in my proposal. Under my proposal, with respect to private lands, payment of
just compensation is required
THE PRESIDENT: So, the Committee will study this particular proposed
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we shall. We have it in written form.
MR. SARMIENTO: It is now 12: 15 p.m. I move for a suspension of the session
until 2:30 p.m.
May we remind the Commissioners that we are having our caucus with our
luncheon at South Caucus Rooms A and B immediately after this session.
It was 12:16 p.m.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.

MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I will just manifest that Commissioner Ople
and I have also submitted an amendment for Section 5 which is already with
the
Committee and everyone has been furnished a copy of it.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized.
I am recommending to the Committee on Social Justice to combine Section 5
and 7 of its report because they are related to each other. This is for
purposes
of symmetry and legal craftsmanship but with substantial modifications
which 1~ would like to explain before this honorable Commission.
As combined, Sections 5 and 7 should read as follows: The State shall
undertake a genuine agrarian reform program founded on the rights of
farmers and
farmworkers to own directly or collectively the lands they till. To this end, the
State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all
agricultural lands, subject to such EXEMPTIONS. My original amendment
mentioned RETENTION LIMITS but upon consultation with a number of
colleagues, I
changed the term RETENTION LIMITS to EXEMPTIONS.
To continue: AND PRIORITIES, which is a substantial amendment, then as
Congress may prescribe and subject to a fair and progressive system of
compensation AS DEFINED BY LAW.
The second paragraph of this section should now read: THE PRINCIPLES OF
AGRARIAN REFORM SHALL LIKEWISE APPLY TO LANDS OF THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN UNDER LEASE OR
CONCESSION, SUBJECT TO PRIOR RIGHTS OF SMALL SETTLERS OR
LANDHOLDERS there are Filipinos granted landholdings, homesteads, and
they are not merely
settlers AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES TO THEIR
ANCESTRAL LANDS. IN APPROPRIATE CASES, THE PRINCIPLES OF AGRARIAN
REFORM SHALL LIKEWISE APPLY
IN THE DISPOSITION OF OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES. In the case of the last

sentence, it seems to me that Commissioner Davide has a point when he
said that this
should be referred to the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony. I have no objection if the Committee refers this to the Committee
on the
National Economy and Patrimony because it seems to me that the
explanations of the Committee with respect to the application of the general
principles of
agrarian reform to the disposition of other natural resources is nebulous, but
I have a feeling that the Gentleman must be referring to security of tenure
when he provided for the application of principles of agrarian reform to the
disposition of natural resources.
I would like to explain, Madam President, for a few minutes this proposed
amendment. I am deeply concerned about the plight of small landholders
because
they constitute a great bulk of the middle class of Filipino society. I would like
to quote the Journal of Saturday, August 2, 1986. It says on page 32:
On genuine land reform, Mr. Tadeo stated that Congress would enact a
scheme for implementation. He stated that small landowners should not be
apprehensive
about the program since the scheme contemplated by the Committee would
be implemented on them on its last phase when the country shall have
reached the
stage of industrialization. He stressed that the program would be
implemented gradually.
I am concerned about these small landholders to whom we will present the
Constitution for ratification. They now own their landholdings and their plight
was brought to the fore in this Constitutional Commission by no less than our
Journal Officer, Mr. Vicente Roy Kayaban, Jr., who distributed a dissertation
on the plight of the small landholders.
I know very well that these small landholders have also some tenants and
they are considered farmers in contemplation of the committee report. I
would like
to mention that I talked to some members of the Committee and they even
articulated before this Commission that the retention limit with respect to
small
landholders should be seven hectares, perhaps influenced by the pertinent
provisions of P.D. No. 27. Some of them recommended 10 hectares.
There are many factors to be considered in determining the retention limits
or the exemptions that I mentioned in my proposed provision. I said that 24
hectares may cover lands that are not productive compared to two hectares
that are highly productive, because there are lands that are not productive in
the sense that they are stony and no matter how much fertilizer is used, the
produce of the land may not even support a family with four or five
members.
So, I think we should leave it to Congress to determine the extent of the
exemption that should be granted, instead of Congress determining the
intention
of the Commission from separate statements coming from the members of
the Committee.
I would like to quote the Supreme Court about these small landholders whose
lands might be subject to agrarian reform, thereby creating a new set of
impoverished people. By transferring one land from a group to another group
of landless people, we thereby create another group of landless citizens,
which
is a grave injustice. The Supreme Court referred to these small landholders in
the case of Nilo vs. Court of Appeals, speaking through Justice Gutierrez.
According to the Supreme Court, these small landowners are teachers,
clerks, nurses and other hardworking and frugal people who, in a lifetime of
sacrifice, gathered their pitiful little savings and purchased small farms to
supplement the inadequate pension from the Government Service Insurance
System or the Social Security System.
The Supreme Court went further by saying that these landowners constitute
part of the economic middle class which the government is trying to build.
They
deserve as much consideration as the tenants themselves in order not to
create economic dislocation, where the tenants are solely favored while this
particular group of land-owners is impoverished.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should leave it to Congress to determine
priorities and exemptions with respect to the implementation of the land
reform program. I think this is a sane proposal. These landowners constitute
a great bulk of the Filipino population. They are alarmed by the statement of
Mr. Tadeo that their landholdings shall be subject to agrarian reform.
I am in favor of agrarian reform, a meaningful and genuine agrarian reform.
But I think the Members of Congress should be given some leeway. They are
not
less patriotic as the members of the Committee or the Members of this
Constitutional Commission. Besides, they can articulate more validly the
sentiments
of the people, they being elected by the people, and thereby enjoying the
mandate of the people.
Some people outside say that the Members of this Commission do not enjoy
a real mandate from the people, although I think that the people tacitly gave
us
that mandate. And so, I hope the Committee will seriously consider my
reasonable amendments.
I would like to mention here, Madam President, that in yesterdays Manila
Chronicle, quoting Minister Heherson Alvarez, of the 710,000 hectares of land
that should come under the operation of P.D. No. 27, only 11,000 hectares
are covered by land transfer certificates. That is the reason why I mentioned
the
word priorities in the amendment, in view of the statement of Minister
Mitra that we should still finish land reform covering rice or corn land before
we
go to land reform of coconuts or sugarland. I think the supporting structures
of the land reform program will entail a lot of expense, Madam President, and
we cannot raise the false hopes of our people, in the words of Commissioner
Rodrigo.
I want to be realistic on this aspect, although I am fully in favor of a genuine
land reform program because with respect to sugar or coconut lands, we
should leave much of the discretion to Congress because we may be bound
by certain international commitments on quota requirements. For example,
we cannot
apply the land reform program as understood with respect to rice or corn to
sugar or coconut land or even to saltbed or to fishponds. I think much leeway
should be given to Congress, because Congress has the facilities. Congress
may have the technological knowledge or the expertise but we are subject to
constraints of time and we are likewise subject to limitations of facilities. I
think we should have more confidence in the representatives of the people.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inform the body that we have just approved a rule in
our caucus that we will limit the time for every speaker to ten minutes. Let
us
be guided, and I shall ask the Secretariat to put on the timer.
MS. NIEVA: Can we get the amendment of the Commissioner in writing? Is
this a new one?
MR. NOLLEDO: I submitted the amendment in writing to the Committee. I will
give the original to the Committee, and I hope this can be reproduced soon.
Commissioner Gascon has the amendment. Instead of using retention
limits, upon consultation with some of my colleagues, I changed it to
EXEMPTIONS for
wider coverage.
MR. MONSOD: May the Committee make a few remarks in response to the
remarks of the Commissioner?
MR. MONSOD: We just want to make a clarification. In Section 7, the
Gentleman mentioned that he thought the intent of the Committee in
mentioning
principles of agrarian reform was merely to reiterate security of tenure. We
just want to clarify that the Committee means more than that. Commissioner
Tadeo answered the other day that natural resources may be of several
types. These may be forestry, mining, lands of the public domain, but which
are
subject to alienation, lease or concession.
So with respect to lands and the public domain suitable to agriculture, it is
the intention of the Committee that the principles of agrarian reform be
practiced by the State itself when it does dispose or alienate lands of the
public domain. The example is the Guthrie palm oil plantation of which 8,000
hectares were initially declared by decree to be alienable and disposable, but
were disposed of in favor of the NDC. The NDC then went into an agreement
with Guthrie on a 6040 basis. This is an example where, perhaps the State
should at first have thought of the people who were there, that they should
have
been given an opportunity to have the ownership of this land since it was
going to be alienated and disposed of anyway. The principal thing is that the
State should start with its own backyard, if it is serious about agrarian
reform.
In the case of other natural resources, let us say, forestry or mining, the
intent of this provision is merely to say that in applying the principle of
agrarian reform, the chief beneficiaries should be the people in the areas. So,
instead of having absentee logging concessions owned by people from
outside
the area, the people in the area and the communities themselves should be
considered, too, as the principal beneficiaries. The people may be entrusted
with
the land but need not be given to them by title. It can be the same kind of
concession or rights that are now given under the law. If they are the ones
given that right, we expect that they will take better care of the area
because their children and grandchildren will still be there and, therefore,
they
would undertake activities like reforestation.
On Section 7, Commissioner Davide proposed that the words natural
resources be amended and replaced with the word land. The intent of the
Committee is
more than just land; it means other natural resources and lands of the
public domain suitable to agriculture, regardless of whether it be disposable
or
alienable, or under lease or concession. That is the intent of the Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: I got the point, Madam President. At any rate, I am
reproducing in my amendment almost the exact words of the Committee.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: May I also add another aspect to this. The Committee feels
that there are several instances where it might be termed an unjust
acquisition,
for example, if it is the product of political patronage or cronyism. If it is a
product of a real, honest and bona fide transaction, certainly in the
transition from a single beneficiary to the community as the principal
beneficiary, there would be scope for just compensation.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I would like to request all those who desire to
present amendments to present the text of the same to the Secretariat to be
immediately typed and distributed for more expeditious proceedings so that
the Commissioners, besides the Committee members, can study them
intelligently.
MR. NOLLEDO: For the information of the Floor Leader, Madam President, I
submitted the amendment to the Committee. That amendment was given by
the head of
the Committee to Commissioner Tadeo.
MR. RAMA: Please submit them to the Secretariat who will distribute the
same.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is our next speaker?
MR. RAMA: The next speaker, Madam President, is Commissioner Davide who
started amending this particular section this morning.

MR. DAVIDE: This is on Section 5, Madam President. I wonder if the
Committee has already resolved the issue with regard to the amendments on
changing the
word may before on to SHALL, and farmholders to FARMWORKERS, and
justly to EQUITABLY. The entire proposal on Section 5 will now read as
follows:
THE STATE SHALL UNDERTAKE A GENUINE AGRARIAN AND LAND REFORM
PROGRAM UNDER WHICH FARMERS AND FARMWORKERS, WITH PRIORITY TO
THE LANDLESS, SHALL OWN
INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY THE LANDS THEY TILL. SUCH PROGRAM
SHALL COVER ALL AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH, SUBJECT TO SUCH
LIMITATEONS AS CONGRESS MAY
PRESCRIBE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CONSERVATION, ECOLOGICAL AND
DEVELOPMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, SHALL BE EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED, UPON
PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION IN
RESPECT TO PRIVATE LANDS.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any reaction from the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we will consider that among the other
amendments.
MR. TADEO: Ang problema lang ay tungkol sa just compensation dahil, sa
ilalim ng P.D. No. 27 ni Ginoong Marcos, ang pagbabayad ng lupa ay ibinatay
doon
sa average harvest ng tatlong nakaraang ani times 2.5.
MR. DAVIDE: That was for leasehold.
MR. TADEO: Hindi, sa amortizing owner, kaya ito iyong Operation Land
Transfer, under a certificate of land transfer. Ano ang halaga ng lupang
babayaran for
fifteen years with equal annual amortizations? Ang halaga nito ay hindi
sumusunod sa just compensation or fair market value. Actually, with six
percent na
naiwan sa principal, inaabot ito ng P13,000 to P15,000. Batay mismo sa
karanasan mula noong 1972 hanggang doon sa umalis na diktadura, ang
nakabayad lamang
sang-ayon na rin kay Minister Heherson Alvarez ay nine percent, ang halaga
lang ay P15,000, huhulugan mo pa sa loob ng 15 years. Kaya ang punto rito
na
suliranin ko ay iyong just compensation. Ang nakikita namin dito ay dapat
gamitin ang RA 3844, ang right of preemption or right of redemption or
reasonable
capacity of the farmer to pay.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, since the use of the term just compensation
is also in the Nolledo proposal and I understand this is also the proposal of
Commissioner Padilla I would request for a deferment until the Committee
shall have taken into account and studied all the proposed amendments to
Section
5.
MR. TADEO: Salamat po.
MR. BENGZON: Would Commissioner Davide be willing to go back to the old
definition of just compensation?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Before that decree of President Marcos, did just
compensation mean the true market value?
MR. DAVIDE: That should be aligned with the meaning of just compensation
in the Bill of Rights.
MR. BENGZON: So that is the kind of meaning the Gentleman would impute
to these words just compensation under the proposal.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that was the meaning indicated by the Chairman of the
Committee when we took up the Article on the Bill of Rights.
MR. MONSOD: May we also suggest that in the case of just compensation,
we merely state the compensation to be paid to the former landowner?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: However, as far as the source of the repayment is concerned,
it may be that the farmer is not able to afford the just compensation. This is
a
proper area where the State can come in, if it intends to give support or
subsidy. That may be called for in order that the farmer will get a chance to
own
a piece of land. Besides, there might not be a strict correspondence between
a just compensation for the landowner and the capacity of the farmer to pay.
MR. DAVIDE: As a matter of fact, the opening sentence of my proposal states:

It is the duty of the State. This means that the State should first
expropriate, distribute and then the government will deal with the farmers or
the farm workers as to the mode of reimbursement or refunding the amount
that
the government had paid to the landowner, which should be a more just and
equitable arrangement for the farmers and the farm workers. It is now a duty.
MR. MONSOD: That is why I believe that this is consistent with the comments
of Commissioner Tadeo because the objective of agrarian reform is equity. It
is
really not efficiency or production, but the first objective is equity. In that
sense, the State may have to step in to help the farmer pay for the land.
MR. TADEO: Iyon ang ibig sabihin ng fair and progressive system of
compensation. Kayat binibigyang proteksyon dito iyong owner-cultivator
sapagkat kapag
maliit ang lupa mo, mas mataas ang halaga. Pero, kapanabay noon,
binibigyan din ng proteksyon ang tenant-beneficiaries, iyong sinasabi ni
Commissioner
Monsod. Doon ngayon papasok ang government na tutulong upang
magkaroon siya ng reasonable capacity. Dahil sinasabi natin dito upang
protektahan natin ang
maliit na panginoong may lupa, kinakailangang maging mataas ang halaga
ng kaniyang lupa, ngunit hindi kaya iyon ng tenant. Kayat makikita natin,
tama iyong
sinasabi ni Commissioner Monsod.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal of Commissioner Tadeo, we would rather
leave it to Congress to define what should be the compensation. If
Commissioner Tadeo
says the smaller the area, the higher the value, there seems to be no specific
parameter for determining how small is small and where the value will be
higher. So, the best is to define just compensation in the language of the
Bill of Rights, and then leave it to Congress to restate how to require
payment by way of reimbursement of the amount paid by the State to the
landowner.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Jamir be
recognized for one clarificatory question.
MR. JAMIR. I have one simple question addressed to Commissioner Davide.
This morning, with respect to Section 5, Commissioner Davide used the
phrase may
own, and I understand that he used the word may advisably because no
individual should be compelled to own a parcel of land if he does not want to.
Then, I understand that he has changed it to shall own. Are we to
understand now that individuals may be compelled to own lands?
MR. DAVIDE: Of course, a right may be waived, but the sense of the proposal
is to clarify the mandate on the State. It is up to the farmer or the farm
worker to enjoy the benefit or the privilege or the right.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Maambong be
recognized for another amendment.
In Section 5, the word genuine is used to qualify the agrarian reform
program, and this word has been carried over in the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide and that of Commissioner Nolledo. My only proposed
amendment is to change the word genuine to CONTINUING so that it would
read:
CONTINUING agrarian reform program. This agrarian reform program has
been with us for a long time. If my memory serves me right, in the prizewinning
oration of then Senator Raul Manglapus in the Ateneo while he was still a
student, he was already talking about agrarian reform in his piece entitled
Land
of Bondage. And because of that oration, I understand President Quezon
took notice of him. Yesterday, I mentioned the favorite Republic Act of
Commissioner Tadeo RA 3844, the Agricultural Land Reform Code. In 1971,
we had the Code of Agrarian Reforms, RA Nos. 6389 and 6390, and then we
had P.D.
Nos. 2 and 27. So, it would not really be in keeping with correctness if we use
the word genuine with the agrarian reform program. To my mind, we would
rather use the proper term continuing agrarian reform. If we say
genuine, it gives a sad commentary on the reform programs undertaken
not only by
President Marcos, but also by the previous Presidents of this Republic. I am
submitting this for consideration but the Committee does not have to rule on
it right now.
MR. TADEO: Commissioner Maambong, ang problema po kasi kapag sinabi

mong continuing ang P.D. No. 27, itoy tinawag ng mga magbubukid na
fake land
reform. Ang ibig ba nating sabihin ay continuing the fake land reform
program, kaya ginagamit namin ang genuine agrarian reform program?
MR. MAAMBONG: While we can say for the record what the Commissioner
just said: that is, that it is fake, yet he has always been quoting RA 3844
since the
beginning of our discussion. Are we also saying that RA 3844 is fake, since
the Committee has been quoting it time and time again? If we can put it on
record that P.D. Nos. 2 and 27, as far as the Committee is concerned, are
fake, let it stay that way as part of the pronouncement of the Committee, but
let
us not say that RA Nos. 3844,6389 and 6390 are also fake. I am presenting
this so that the language used in the Constitution will be in keeping with
what
is exactly intended here- to continue the agrarian reform program.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, perhaps the better words would be a more
effective land reform or agrarian reform, in order to avoid the implications
of
whether it is genuine or fake.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am open to that suggestion, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized to amend Section 6.
MR. DAVIDE: On Section 6, we should eliminate the distinction between
independent farmers organizations from other kinds of farmers
organization, and
insofar as support is concerned I added the word REFINANCING so, as
proposed, it will now read as follows: The State shall CONSULT the farmers,
farm
workers, farmers cooperatives OR ORGANIZATIONS in the planning,
organizing, and management of the program and shall provide support to
agriculture through
appropriate technology and adequate financial, CREDIT, REFINANCING,
production and marketing assistance AND OTHER AIDS.
May I elaborate on the new kind of refinancing assistance. In the United

States, there is an agency of the Department of Agriculture known as the
Farm
Credit Administration, with facilities to be expanded in times of economic
depression in agriculture, and utilized for the refinancing of farm
indebtedness. This should be entirely different from the simple concept of
financial assistance. My proposal is intended to help the farmers in times of
economic depression in agriculture, by allowing them refinancing scheme for
farm indebtedness. This will broaden the concept of assistance in agrarian
reform.
MR. TADEO: Maraming salamat, Commissioner Davide, sa isang
napakagandang susog, dahil ang katotohanan, 90 percent ng mga
magsasaka natin ay nakabaon sa
kumunoy ng pagkakautang, kaya mahalaga iyong ipinasok po ninyo.
MR. ROMULO: Would Commissioner Davide consider a minor amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly.
MR. ROMULO: Between the words the and farmers, I propose to insert
LANDOWNER, and between the words the and program, insert AGRARIAN
REFORM for
clarity.
MR. DAVIDE: May we have the first amendment again.
MR. ROMULO: The first part will read: The State shall CONSULT the
LANDOWNER, farmers, farmworkers . . .
MR. DAVIDE: What about the second amendment?
MR. ROMULO: The second shall read: . . . organizing and management of the
AGRARIAN REFORM program, so that we know what program we are talking
about.
MR. DAVIDE: I gladly accept the amendments.
MR. ROMULO: On the last line, I think we can delete and between
production and marketing.
MR. DAVIDE: I agree. The amendment is willingly accepted .
MR ROMULO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: What does the Committee say?
MR. TADEO: Pag-aaralan muna namin itong plain owner.

THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed to the next.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized
to amend Section 7.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 7 was already included in my original amendment
because I recommended that Sections 5 and 7, which are related to each
other, should
be combined.
MR. RAMA: In that case, Madam President, Commissioner Sarmiento has
some clarificatory questions to be addressed to Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. SARMIENTO: Just one brief clarificatory question, Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. NOLLEDO: Gladly.
MR. SARMIENTO: In the amendment to line 23, the proponent added the
words exemptions and priorities as Congress may prescribe. As a noted
professor on
land reform, may we know from the proponent the scope, the extent and the
nature of these exemptions and priorities for the guidance of future
legislators?
MR. NOLLEDO: In my explanation, I alluded to small landholders.
MR. SARMIENTO. : Is this the only exception?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, I am giving that only as an example. That is the reason I
did not give other exemptions so I emphasized that Congress should be
given much
leeway in determining the exemptions. I would recommend one exemption,
for example, agro-industrial corporations that have been viable and are
involved in
exportation of certain products that contribute to the development of the
national economy, in the sense that Congress determines that. Applying the
principles of agrarian reform to employees of these corporations might
prejudice in some way the quota requirements on exportation.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Davide has registered to amend
Section 8.
MR. DAVIDE: My amendments would affect lines 7 and 8 of the proposed
Section 8. On line 7, I seek for the insertion of the word MARGINAL before the
word
fisherman and the change of fisherman to FISHERMEN. On line 8, I
propose to delete the words direct or communal; on line 11, I propose to
insert
the words TO SAID FISHERMEN AND before the word for. The entire section
will now read: The State shall protect the rights of MARGINAL FISHERMEN
and
local communities to the use of marine and fishing resources, both inland
and offshore, and shall provide appropriate financial, technical and research
assistance TO SAID FISHERMEN AND for the development and conservation
of such resources.
MR. TADEO: Bakit po natin kinaltas ang direct or communal use?
MR. DAVIDE: Frankly speaking, this is not even necessary because marine
and fishing resources are considered communal. The idea really is to protect
the
interest of the marginal fishermen. So whether the fishermen will directly use
or not, they are entitled to the use of the marine and fishing resources. My
second proposal is that the assistance is only for development and
conservation, not an assistance to the fishermen themselves, so there is the
necessity
of mandating such assistance to the fishermen themselves and not just to
the conservation and development of the resources.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, mayroong isang konkretong halimbawa sa
Laguna Lake. Hindi ba mahalaga na kung ilalagay natin ang direct or
communal use, ang
ibig sabihin ay mayroon silang atas na mangisda doon sa Lawa ng Laguna?
Kung aalisin natin iyon, hindi ba mahalaga na manatili ang direct or
communal
use?
MR. DAVIDE: For me, it will not really destroy the very concept of the
recognition of the right. It is a right, whether direct or not, and so it makes
the
difference. If the Gentleman insists on his proposal, it would mean that they
do not have the indirect right. So, we better eliminate this direct or
communal use because that is already conceded in the right itself in the
first opening sentence. That is already a right.
MR. RAMA: One clarificatory question from Commissioner Maambong.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I direct this question to
Commissioner Davide or to the Committee.
Does not the Committee think that the right granted in this particular section
is already covered by Fisheries Act No. 4003, as amended by Commonwealth
Act
No. 471, as amended by so many presidential decrees?
MR. DAVIDE: I agree that we have these laws but let us also consider what is
actually happening to the marginal fishermen and the local communities.
They
are deprived by those who can have the political clout, the protection of
politicians. There are also big fishermen who have the monopoly of certain
areas.
We direct it as a right. We mandate the State to respect it as a right and,
therefore, it cannot be removed by legislation. The Fisheries Act can be
amended at any time to deprive the marginal fishermen of the rights.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, Madam President, all these rights proposed
to be granted in this Constitution are already covered by the Fisheries Act, as
amended, and the administrative provisions of the Bureau of Fisheries but we
just want them constitutionalized.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because this particular law and the regulations and rules
thereof have always been made in favor of not the marginal fishermen but
others
who I said can have some political clout or can have the patronage of
politicians.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I ask the Committee to comment on this?
MR. MONSOD: We agree with the position of Commissioner Davide that it
might be appropriate to expressly mention it in the Constitution. However,
we would
like to inform Commissioner Davide that two of the problems that we wanted
to address is a situation in Laguna de Bay where areas of the bay were
appropriated or allowed to be used by private fishpen owners to the
exclusion of the marginal fishermen. The other one is the question of the
offshore
fishermen where by reason of certain treaties with other countries, the offshore fishermen were really deprived of a livelihood because of the presence
of
large-scale trawlers within seven kilometers from the seashore. We sought to
address ourselves to the problem by emphasizing communal use of water
resources in inland waters, as well as offshore.
Would the amendment of the Gentleman still cove and emphasize the rights
of these fishermen to these areas, or can he suggest appropriate language
so that
we amply cover those problems?
MR. DAVIDE: The opening of this section reads The State shall protect the
rights of fishermen. So here we already recognize the existence of that right
whether that right is direct or indirect; but it is a definite, concrete, positive
right that is being recognized We also mandate the State to respect that
particular right. So, insofar as the problems addressed to earlier are
concerned, necessarily, any special grant over these areas will have to yield
to
this specific mandate now. So, all permits or concessions I do not know
how to call these benefits granted will have to be reconciled with this and,
therefore, if these would affect the rights of the marginal fishermen, those
grants must necessarily have to be repealed or revoked.
MR. MONSOD: In other words, the amendment actually is less limiting than
putting in the words direct or communal.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. It is precisely to emphasize the positive
character of the right.
MS. NIEVA: Would this also cover the problem of these big Japanese trawlers
which come in and take advantage of the fishing resources so that the small
fishermen can hardly finance?
MR. DAVIDE: Undoubtedly, because this is now a right of first impression.
Before, they did not have the right, it was only a privilege, especially for
offshore fishermen.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, would it also help in the interpretation if we
put PROTECT THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS OF MARGINAL FISHERMEN AND
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
TO THE USE OF FISHING RESOURCES?
MR. DAVIDE: That would be much better really. I agree to the use of SHALL
PROTECT THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS. That would remove all possible
doubts in the
interpretation of the right.
recognized for one clarificatory question?
MR. RODRIGO: My question has reference to the words local communities
on line 8. The State shall protect the rights of local communities, not only
fishermen, to fishing resources, both inland and offshore. Does local
communities mean the communities bordering the fishing ground?
MR. DAVIDE: I would refer the matter to the Committee. It is not covered by
my proposal.
MR. RODRIGO: I want to give an example. In my own province of Bulacan, we
have municipalities bordering Manila Bay Hagonoy, Paombong, Malolos,
Bulacan
and Obando. These are good fishing grounds; we call them communal fishing
grounds. Fishermen from Bataan and Cavite go there to fish. Now, is it the
purpose of this Article to instruct Congress to reserve these communal
fishing grounds bordering the towns of Bulacan to Bulakeos only?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think that is precisely what the Committee thinks that it
is the local community who should be the first beneficiaries of the
resources.
MR. MONSOD: We also want to say that while the intent is that there should
be some preferential rights by shore communities, this is not to the exclusion
of everybody else. What we are trying to avoid is a situation where other
people come in and completely take over the communal grounds and the
people in
the shore communities which derive their livelihood from that communal
fishing ground, thereby losing all their livelihood opportunities. That is the
intent of the Committee, Madam President, and we would be very happy to
receive suggestions as to what may be properly reflected in the provision.
MR. RODRIGO: In other words, if Congress enacts a law, saying that only
those Bulakeos living in the municipalities by the shoreline may fish in that
communal fishing ground, that would not be valid.
MR. MONSOD: That would not be the intent, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: May I ask Commissioner Rodrigo and the Committee a question
concerning this?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.

MR. OPLE: I am concerned about the exclusivity of any section concerning
marine resources including communal fishing grounds because it is a fact
that
fishermen from Bulacan go to Bataan and Pampanga to fish and, of course,
this is reciprocated. Many of our fishing boats in Hagonoy actually go to
Quezon,
to the Lamon Bay especially where the catches are better in some parts of
the year and also to Palawan. I hope there is no suggestion here that the
communities bordering these waters could be given grounds under the
Constitution and future laws to restrict the fishing only to the people from
those
localities. The mobility and interaction of fishermen along the Manila Bay
coast and the coast of Luzon, since I do not know about the Visayas and
Mindanao
directly, is very important because this widens the scope of opportunities for
them, especially since fishing is seasonal. In many instances where the
Manila Bay is barren, one can proceed to the Quezon coast and try his luck
there.
And so, I would welcome an interpretation by Commissioner Rodrigo and the
Committee itself to the effect that there is no intention in this provision to
restrict the mobility of small fishermen.
MR. MONSOD: The comment is well taken, and that is why we did not use the
word exclusive. One of the reasons why we also used communal with
respect to
these communities is that it is not the intention of the Article to say that
some privileged people within those communities can parcel out among
themselves exclusive areas for their own fishing benefits. That was one of
the original reasons why we used the word communal. But with the
explanation
of Commissioner Davide that that would all be encompassed, and with the
further modification and interpretation of Commissioners Rodrigo and Ople
that this
is not exclusive, the intent of the provision is already clarified.
I wish to clarify that point of Commissioner Davide on these communal
fishing grounds for the reason that I was the author of a law during the old
Congress
days setting aside the 2,695 hectares of communal fishing grounds in
Bulacan referred to by Commissioner Rodrigo for the bay shore area of
Bulacan,
Bulacan. The idea was that the area was dedicated and was reserved for the
marginal fishermen, but anybody can fish with out him building a fishpond in
that place. I put in the law that anyone building or parcelling a lot there to
the prejudice of the marginal fishermen will have his obstruction removed as
nuisance per se. I placed that in the law as nuisance per se and in a
summary manner it a can be removed by the government, expenses for
which can be
charged against the one responsible for the obstruction. That is the reason
why we have a communal fishing ground in Bulacan.
Now the point is, I am also interested in emphasizing the right of the
fishermen to the reserved communal fishing grounds because these are
reserved for
marginal fishermen who cannot be expected to have the equipment to go
deeper into the sea. They are only marginal fishermen with small generators
and small
bancas and they actually need our help. May I inform the body about the
results of this law.
As soon as this 2,965 hectares rich in shrimps were declared as communal
fishing grounds, big fishpond owners from other provinces began to build
fishponds
there. Despite the law, which prescribes that the Constabulary will take
charge of the area and the Department of Agriculture will protect the area,
there
was no such protection. I am just giving the body our own experience.
And so, I agree that in the Constitution it is time that we devote our attention
to communal fishing grounds, but more importantly we should command the
legislature to protect these communal fishing grounds, for without this
protection we will just be giving the fisher men illusions because while they
will
have at the start communal fishing grounds, they will soon be deprived of
this privilege as proven from our past experience.
MS. NIEVA: Therefore, does Commissioner Natividad want the retention of
the phrase the communal use?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am for the retention of communal fishing grounds and
that they should be protected by the State. I would like to say that any
obstruction should be dealt with summarily. As mentioned by Commissioner
Maambong, there is a plethora of laws, but all of these laws only give a
procedure. The complaint of the fishermen is brought before the district

engineer, then appealed to Malacaang, and then later on to the courts, but
it
will take ten years before the fishermen can have their case resolved. In the
end, the, fishermen choose to keep quiet because they cannot wait for ten
years to get back an area in which they can eke out a marginal livelihood.
So, I am just giving the body our experience in this regard because we
should not have only communal fishing grounds, we should also say that
they should
be protected by the State.
MS. NIEVA: So, would the Gentleman be recommending an amendment to
add that protection?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I would like to, yes.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, and we would welcome such an amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I make an inquiry of the Committee?
I admire the Committee for giving the marginal fishermen the preferential
rights to communal fishing grounds and mention has been made of Laguna
de Bay,
along which I am particularly residing. The area along Laguna Bay is 90,000
hectares wide but began dying sometime in 1983 up to about 1986, so that I
even
wrote an article entitled A Requiem to Laguna Bay which I submitted to the
Laguna Lake Development Authority. Has the Committee inquired why from
1983 up
to early 1986 Laguna Bay has been dying? I would put an information
because we know that the one that killed Laguna de Bay was the Napindan
Control
Structure built by the old regime for P220 million allegedly for the use of the
waters of Laguna Bay for domestic use and for irrigation purposes. The
purpose of the Napindan Control Structure was to prevent the entry of salt
water from Manila Bay to Laguna Bay through the Pasig River. We
complained to
the Laguna Lake Development Authority that there is no water circulation in
Laguna Bay, that is why from 1983 to 1985, the fishes in Laguna Bay got sick
and began to die.
Now, has the Committee taken into consideration what is to be done with the
Napindan Control Structure so that the communal fishermen whom we are
protecting here can be given their better livelihood?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, during the hearings we received the
testimony from both the associations of fishpen operators and of the
fishermen around
Laguna e Bay. There have also been quite a number of studies made,
including an estimate of what would be an optimum area for fishpen
operators.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am not talking of the fishpens in Laguna de Bay. I am
talking of the Napindan Control Structure which prevents the entry of salt
water to
Laguna de Bay, thereby preventing water circulation and killing the very
source of livelihood for the marginal fishermen whom we are protecting here.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we also received some technical
testimonies on the effect of the Napindan Dam because of the inability of salt
water to come
in and help generate the food for fish to grow in Laguna de Bay. That was
also presented to us in testimony although we ourselves are not the people
who
would say what should be done with the structures. We believe that this was
one of the considerations when we decided to draft the Article emphasizing
the
communal use which would also be a mandate to the government to make
sure that the fishing potential of the area is not hurt by artificial structures.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I inform the body that due to our continuous
representation in the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the gate to the
control structure
has been opened and after six months Laguna de Bay became alive again.
And so, we asked for the total dismantling of the Napindan Control Structure.
Has
the Committee taken that into consideration?
MS. NIEVA: I am afraid, Commissioner de Castro, that we were not really
concerned with such matters as with actually providing protection to the
marginal
fishermen. I think we were not really going into the technical aspects of our
studies.
MR. DE CASTRO: If we are concerned about the preferential rights and the
livelihood of 10,000 families around Laguna de Bay, then we should look into
the
reason why Laguna Bay is dying. And so, I will request the Committee to
make appropriate representation in order that the Napindan Control
Structure be
demolished so that the fishermen whom we are protecting be given their
proper livelihood.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we are grateful for the manifestation of
Commissioner de Castro and the records of the Commission will be a very
good source
of information with regard to this matter.
SR. TAN: Madam President.
SR. TAN: I would like to express my appreciation to the Committee who
thought of the small fishermen and for the elucidation of Commissioners
Ople and
Rodrigo. When we were in the public hearing in Pagadian, we were told that
the small fishermen are being swallowed up by the big fishermen from the
Visayas
and Luzon.
Does communal mean that the big fishermen will have equal rights as the
marginal fishermen? What was the intent of the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: Precisely, our intent was to protect the preferential right of these
marginal fishermen.
SR. TAN: But if we say communal, does it mean protection?
MS. NIEVA: For the communities that live there.
SR. TAN: Preferential for the community?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
SR. TAN: Is it enough to protect them from the sharks-from the big
fishermen?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President. I think this was part of the clarification
made by Commissioner Davide that the right being sought to be protected is
also the right to exclude the big fishermen from taking over completely the
areas to the detriment of those who rely on it for their livelihood. While we
are saying that it is not exclusive for such fishermen, the State has the duty
to exclude the big fishermen who deprive them of their livelihood.
SR. TAN: Thank you very much.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, palagay ko po, kasama ang laot, dahil ang
nakalagay dito ay both inland and offshore.
MR. DAVIDE: May I just comment on the clarification earlier made by
Commissioner Natividad that we should retain the communal provision. I
fear that if
we have to put in said provision, there might be a possibility that Congress
will define a certain area in off-shore or inshore marine resource fishing
resources as noncommunal. So necessarily we might, in effect, diminish
the exercise of the right because it may be exercised only in areas which the
law
may declare as communal. Under the proposal, without the use of the word
communal, it simply means that this entire marine fishing resource
inland or
offshore will be open to the marginal fishermen for them to exercise
preferential rights. And so, if we now place communal, I am afraid that
Congress
will have a way of limiting the area within these resources as communal and
the rest may be open to big fishermen.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be
recognized for his amendment.
I have a very short amendment on Section 13.
MR. NOLLEDO: Have we reached Section 13 already?
MS. QUESADA: Not yet.

MR. NOLLEDO: Section 7 was included in Section 5 before, Madam President.
I think this is the second time that I was called to present that amendment. It
was already presented before.
MR. BENGZON: We are only in Section 9.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. I presented an amendment to combine Sections 5 and 7.
Thank you.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, could I just make a comment on the
proposed amendment by substitution of Commissioner Davide?
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, instead of the State recognizing the right of
farmers and farm workers, of cooperatives and other independent farmers
organizations to participate in the planning, organizing, and management of
the program, Commissioner Davide is proposing the word CONSULTATION
TO
CONSULT. But we would like the Commissioner to know that in a study of the
levels of citizens participation in decision-making, consultation is one of the
lower ranks of real participation of the people. So, does not the
Commissioner think that his proposal does not quite capture the intention of
the
Committee which is to recognize the right of farmers and farm workers of
cooperatives, et cetera, to participate in the process of planning, organizing
and
management of agrarian reform? My concern is that, instead of giving them
that right, the Commissioner is actually just giving them the right to be
consulted. We know a lot of consultations are taking place, but what is
gathered from consultations actually does not end up as significant in the
decision-making.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, in the substitute proposal, the State is
mandated to consult, while in the original proposal, it is recognition of a
right.
There is a difference in just merely recognizing a right from the more positive
directive that they should really be consulted. It does not mean that these
organizations will have to supplant the policies which Congress may finally
decide. So, in effect, we consider the views of these groups in order that the
legislature may be enlightened on the formulation of policies. So in other
words, the proposal is stronger than just recognizing the right.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, the difference is with respect to the matter
of consultation and participation in the planning. Under the draft proposal
submitted by the Committee, a recognition on the part of the State to allow
the farmers, farm workers, cooperatives and other independent farmers
organizations to participate in the planning is demanded. As the
Commissioner proposes it, its target is the matter of consultation.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal, is it the intention of the Committee to
require that representatives from the farmers, the farm workers, the farmers
organizations or associations will sit in these agencies or instrumentalities of
the government which would enforce or implement the agrarian reform
program?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the thrust of the proposal under Section 6, Madam
President.
MR. DAVIDE: So, is the State mandated now to provide a seat?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Does this mean in any agency related to the formulation,
planning, organizing and implementation of the agrarian reform program?
MR. SUAREZ: Not necessarily a formal seat, but participation for some . . .
MR. DAVIDE: Would that participation be the matter of public hearings or
consultations?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, more in public hearings and consultations.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not necessarily then an allocation of a seat in policy-making
bodies.
MR. SUAREZ: Not a formal seat in the planning body, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: So, if that is the intention, I think the alternative proposal would
reflect the real intention. Under the original proposal, it does not
mandate that there should be seats allocated to them.
MR. BENGZON: That is not the idea. I think, as Commissioner Garcia will
explain, we will have to correlate Section 6 with the last section of the Article
on the role and rights of peoples organization.
MR. DAVIDE: Correct, because a broader interpretation is possible on the
present provision as proposed; that is, Section 6, together with the last
particular section possibly two interpretations: one, participation in the
formulation by way of public hearings or two, submission of position papers

or
a situation where it has become a mandate that in these agencies in charge
of the formulation, organizing and the implementation, representatives must
be
allowed to sit as either regular members or as ex-officio members.
MR. GARCIA: If I may be allowed to explain, I think this Article on Social
Justice must be seen as a whole. One will notice that when we tackled the
different sectors farmers, workers, the indigenous communities, women
and the problem of health and the urban poor in the last section, we
precisely
recognized the role and the rights of peoples organizations: first of all, their
right to participate, and, secondly, the State shall ensure adequate
consultation mechanisms for such participation. I think it is in this area of
implementation of decisions which affect the lives of these sectors that they
be made participants.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is the intention of the Committee, there is no need to
state in Section 6 the right of farmers and farm workers because that is
recognized already in another section.
MR. GARCIA: Yes. But, precisely, what we are trying to do here is to tie this up
and make it specific. Sections 19 and 20, in a sense, are the enabling
mechanisms. Not only is it the duty of the State to provide and to facilitate
the rights of these people but the organizations of the people themselves
must try to make these effective and real.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. In other words, Section 20 would be a general
principle which will cover everything, to wit:
The State shall respect the right of the people and their organizations to
effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political and
economic decision-making, and shall ensure adequate consultation
mechanisms for such participation.
This is very broad already as to cover Section 6.
MR. GARCIA: Especially in the pursuit of the ends of social justice which is the
thrust of all of these different provisions on the different sectors.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Probably, we could amend Section 20 to cover everything.
MR. GARCIA: Precisely, that is the intention for this to become a vehicle so
that these sectors who normally are excluded from political decision-making
and from economic rewards of their work will have a just share.
MR. DAVIDE: So, consequently, in view of the all-embracing provision of the

proposed Section 20, we can limit Section 6 with the provision regarding
support to agriculture.
MR. GARCIA: I think the reason it was placed here was that farmers,
specifically, and their organizations want to participate in the land reform
program
from its organization up to its management.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. That would be covered by Section 20.
MR. GARCIA: But more specifically, the intent of Section 6 is to provide for
this precise program of land reform. Although I agree with the Gentleman
that
in a general manner, this is covered at the end, still, it does not in any way
complicate . . .
MR. DAVIDE: It is already covered, so if the intention is just to . . .
MR. GARCIA: In fact, it zeroes in on the need of farmers to have this vehicle
of participation.
MR. DAVIDE: So that there will be no different interpretations between
Section 6 and Section 20, we should reword Section 6 to carry the intent of
Section
20.
MR. BENGZON: I was precisely going to suggest that, having known the
intentions of the Committee and the correlation between Sections 6 and 20.
May we have
the Gentlemans thoughts on this matter? Perhaps, he could retire for a
moment and realign Section 6 and give us his thoughts on this.
MR. DAVIDE: Retire for some moments, Madam President. I need time.
MR. TADEO: Kaya namin ito inilagay sa Section 6 dahil isa itong component
para sa implementation ng genuine agrarian reform program. Ang kailangan
kasi
dito ay participation mismo ng mga beneficiaries sa pagpapatupad ng
programa. Kaya kailangang mapalagay dito iyong Section 6.
Commissioner Villegas be recognized?

MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, with due respect to the Committee
members, I would like to suggest the deletion of Section 9. The reason is that
the very
first section of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony is an omnibus
provision actually worked out by a member of this Committee, the Honorable
Suarez, stipulating that all Philippine resources will be used for the Filipinos,
with particular emphasis on the welfare of the poor, and I think Section
9 is more than adequately covered by such a provision. The other reason
Section 9 is really controversial is that it uses the most mysterious word
integrated, especially referring to different sectors agriculture, fishing
and marine.
As I am sure many of us still painfully remember there was a certain lady in
the past regime who used this word integrated ad nauseam. Everything
was
integrated and I am afraid that if we put in it this specific section, we will
elicit a very negative reaction from the people. The word integrated as
used in macroeconomics, just to use a technical jargon, is easy to explain.
So, when we talk of an integrated national development program, we must
be sure
that all the various sectors are actually coordinated. But the moment we
start applying it as an integrated area development, industrial integration
and so
on, we get bogged down with a lot of very intricate problems. I think this is
better left to the legislature rather than a provision in the Constitution.
So, I submit that we completely delete Section 9.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, when the Committee discussed this, we
were aware that it might be a duplication of the Article on National Economy
and
Patrimony. We have agreed that we will transpose it if it is amply covered
there, but just to tell the body our intention when we talk about integrated
development, what the Committee wants to express is that there should be a
forward or backward integration so that it would include processing of these
resources, and perhaps even the marketing, so that the goods may be made
available particularly to the poor at a reasonable cost. And since the
Gentleman
made the manifestation that this is amply covered in the other Article, we
are willing to have it transposed and taken out from here.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: May we ask one question? There is a provision here that says in
order to meet the basic needs of the people. Would this be amply covered
by
that?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, because the wording of this omnibus provision says that
all the goods produced in the Philippines should be produced for the benefit
of
the Filipino people with priority to the welfare of the poor. And then it goes
on by talking about all sectors being developed without priority to
anyone. In fact, the members of the Committee on the National Economy
and Patrimony will remember that some people objected to singling out
agriculture,
industry and services because there are so many sectors. We just made an
omnibus statement that all sectors, without any bias, will be developed,
whether
forward, backward or sideward. So, that is more than covered in this
provision.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I comment on Section 8,
regarding fishermen, wherein Commissioner Davide has suggested the
adjective marginalized
to describe them. Several studies have shown that the small-scale traditional
fishermen are often classified as municipal fishermen. They are fishermen
using vessels three tons or less with gears that do not require beats and who
work in marine and inland waters. Forty percent of them own the boats they
use in fishing. The category of municipal fishermen is acceptable in some
studies.
I have earlier proposed also to transfer Sections 7 and 9 to the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony. But should we retain Section 9 in this
Article,
I would suggest that we include the concepts of alternative community
approaches in the development of agricultural small- and medium-scale
industries.
Some of the concepts that I would like to submit to the Committee include
approaches such as communal farms, cooperatives, nucleus states, etc.
The other comment that I would like to make is on Section 5 where I would
substitute the word genuine with COMPREHENSIVE. This concept is used to
describe land reform which seeks to expand areas beyond rice and corn.
In Section 1, on social justice, I hope the Committee would consider my
proposal which seeks to incorporate the concept of equitable sharing of the
fruits
and means of production and power, as well as the concept of achieving a
balanced social order. In the latter phrase, I would like to suggest the
concept
of placing primacy on need and then working towards the distribution of
resources in order that society becomes a habitat worthy of the dignity of
man.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I ask a question of the Committee now that
Section 9 is eliminated, or is it merely transposed?
MR. MONSOD: It would be transferred to the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony because they have a similar provision.
I hesitated to propose this amendment before for fear that this section, I
mean, the sections under Aquatic Resources Reform, might become
bloated. But
now that Section 9 is transposed, can we address more directly and
specifically these urgent concerns that were expressed by the fishermen in
the hearings
of some of our committees, both here and in the provinces, so that there will
be another section to replace Section 9 and it will simply read: THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT MUNICIPAL FISHING GROUNDS FROM INTRUSIONS EITHER BY
MAJOR TRAWLERS OR FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS?
Commissioner Monsod had earlier stressed the fears and grievances of the
small fishermen, especially from the Manila Bay area and the Laguna Lake. It
will
be remembered that even the commercial treaty between the Philippines
and Japan was frequently cited as a threat to the rights of the small
fishermen.
And when we speak of municipal fishing grounds, we really refer to what
otherwise would have been called communal fishing grounds. These are the
relatively
small coastal areas where poor fishermen and there are 600,000 of them
according to the census eke out their living day to day, when the weather
permits. And yet, we know that off Zambales I was there sometime ago
and in Iba, the fishermen were complaining about Japanese and Taiwanese
poachers
just two or three kilometers off the coast. And these fishing fleets are so
powerful, so unscrupulous and so insensitive to national feelings that they
are
said to ram the small fishing boats of the municipal fishermen off Zambales.
I think this is not confined to Zambales, meaning, that these poachers from
Japan, Taiwan and Korea routinely oppress our own small fishermen in their
own
municipal fishing grounds.
And so, if the Committee will be open to an amendment, specifically
addressing these concerns raised by the small fishermen, I would like to
formulate this
in a more precise form to be submitted to the Committee.
And before we leave the subject, may I call the attention of the Committee to
the fact that about 200,000 families along the Manila Bay coast and this
extends all the way from Zambales up to Cavite and portions of Batangas
may lose their livelihood entirely in just a matter of years because the Manila
Bay is being drained of marine life, mainly because of the activities of the big
trawlers that day to day bring up the catch from the seabed, including the
germs of life, the fry, the spawners and the offspring. That is the reason the
Bureau of Fisheries has proposed a sanctuary off Bulacan and Pampanga just
to make sure that marine life will not ultimately disappear in the Manila Bay
area.
And so, I also would like to address this problem of the depletion of the
means of livelihood of our people in areas, like the Manila Bay and Laguna
Lake,
through a more specific amendment. If the Committee cares, these
amendments will be precisely framed for its kind consideration.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, in the previous interpellations, I think it Was
made explicit that the situations and the concerns that the Gentleman has
expressed were covered by Section 8. However, we would still be happy to
look at some of the additions or modifications he may want to propose. For
example, when we talk about the use of marine and fishing resources, both
inland and offshore, maybe we can put the phrase PARTICULARLY MUNICIPAL
FISHING
GROUNDS or something like this.
But it is our interpretation that we are covering already the concerns which
the Gentleman has mentioned in this Article.
I was referring to the elimination of one section from the subject Aquatic
Resources Reform. It is true that under Section 8, we are trying to
accommodate the protection of small fishermen, but it was in a manner that
they would fail to appreciate it unless a new section is added that will
address
the concerns that they urgently expressed in our public hearings, so that by
appreciating this concern of the Constitutional Commission there are
600,000
of them times five members of their household quite a load of votes may
be earned in favor of the ratification of this Constitution. I was wondering
whether the Committee will take that into account when I present the more
specific amendments.
Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have some minor amendments on Section 10, line 19. I would suggest that
we delete the word ensure and in lieu thereof insert the word MAKE. On
line 20,
between housing and at, insert the word AVAILABLE. And on line 21, put a
period (.) after areas and delete the rest of the sentence.
The amendments for lines 19 and 20 are obvious. I feel that to say ensure
is a very brave thing. One can never ensure but he can make available
decent
housing at an affordable cost. Probably, that is realizable.
The reason I suggest the deletion of the phrase together with
complementary infrastructure . . . is that this should be left to Congress,
otherwise, we
may have the unintended result that if Congress cannot provide anyone of
the enumerated qualifications, they will not go into basic housing at all. For
example, if they can provide for infrastructure but not employment-
generating economic activity, is it then the sense of the Committee that they
should not
go into decent housing available at affordable prices?
MS. NIEVA: In this specific provision, we took into consideration the sad
experiences brought about by relocation where they would transfer
thousands of
low-income urban poor dwellers to the different relocation centers only to get
them all back because there are no employment opportunities in the areas
where they were sent.
MR. ROMULO: I realize that problem and I do not deny it. But what I want the
Committee to consider is that we may be unintentionally limiting Congress.
MR. MONSOD: Would the Gentleman say that when we talk about urban land
reform and housing program, the term program would necessarily include
a mandate
that to the extent possible and the resources available, it must be an
integrated approach to the setting up of a decent housing? Would that be
encompassed
in the phrase Urban Land Reform and Housing Program?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I think so. In fact, it is understood from even recent
developments in this field that when we say urban land reform and housing
program,
these are terms of art which include the business of infrastructure,
neighborhood services, etc. Anyway, I am presenting this for the
consideration of the
Committee.
On Section 11, line 24, I am now thinking of Commissioner Tans distinction
with regard to the urban poor dwellers which she described the other day.
And I
wonder if the following qualifying phrase may be helpful. Between dwellers
and shall, insert WITH LEGALLY VALID CLAIMS. I am not saying title; I am
saying CLAIMS. So, that distinguishes them from outright squatters.
Let me complete my suggested amendments. On line 21, put a period (.)
after relocated and delete the rest of the sentence. This is with the thought
that,
again, that could probably be worked out together with the Committees
program, rather than deciding at this point exactly how, when and where the
urban
dwellers are to participate in this kind of a program.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, when we talk of urban poor dwellers, let me
just tell the Gentleman what we are trying to address ourselves to and
maybe he
can help us with the wording.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, certainly.
MR. MONSOD: We realize that there are urban poor dwellers who may have a
valid claim, but as what Commissioner Tan has mentioned yesterday, for
some reason
or another, they encounter red tape and all kinds of impediment that they
cannot get titles to their land. In that case, it is quite clear that there is
already an existing valid claim and, therefore, they have a right to receive
title because they have been there for sometime. But there is another kind of
urban poor dweller whom people would call squatters, and under the law,
they may even be considered a nuisance per se. And we want to address
ourselves as
well to this problem, that even when there is no apparent legal claim or right,
these urban poor dwellers should be dealt with in a humane manner. In
effect, we have two types of urban poor dwellers here those who may
have a valid claim and those who may have no claim at all. One is subject to
due
process and the other, perhaps, to a just and humane manner of relocation.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I think we have to separate the two concepts because
they are probably incompatible.
MS. NIEVA: Would the Gentleman consider some thing like this: EVICTION
AND RELOCATION OF URBAN POOR DWELLERS SHALL BE MADE IN A JUST
AND HUMANE MANNER, and
here we include rural communities. There are rural communities that have to
be evicted and relocated also. Can we provide for something like that?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, even violators and criminals are entitled to humane
treatment.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, but because of the many sad experiences that we had with
forced eviction and relocation where even the military was brought in . . .
MR. ROMULO: Yes, these are the outright squatters.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think even they would have to be evicted and relocated in a
just and humane manner.
MR. ROMULO: Let me then come back to the Committee with a possible
wording.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.

MR. ROMULO: Section 10 is merely a compression. I think the term agrarian
reform program has a meaning already because that was defined in a prior
section. So, I would say that on line 2, delete a comprehensive and on line
3, delete and development, so that the line will read in the context of
THE agrarian reform program. That is all.
Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Tan be
recognized for one clarificatory question on urban poor dwellers.
SR. TAN: Madam President, it is about the amendment of Commissioner
Romulo to insert WITH LEGALLY VALID CLAIMS on Section 11. I believe that
it is the
basic right of every person to be entitled to due process of law, so that my
differentiation yesterday about the two kinds of urban poor dweller does not
apply here. I support the Committee; I think it would apply more to Section
10.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I be allowed to make one comment.
With respect to Section 11, I think we should not make distinctions on
whether one is
an urban poor dweller with legally valid claim and an urban poor dweller with
no legally valid claim. I request that we maintain the same provision because
both types of dweller are entitled to due process of law.
I have reservations with the comment of one of the members of the
Committee that if one is an urban poor dweller with no legal valid claim, he
should be
evicted but do it in a humane or compassionate manner. I think that is not
our concept of the rule of law. Whether one is an urban poor dweller with or
without legal valid claim, still he should be respected; he should be given the
due process of law. So, I humbly request that we maintain the same
provision of Section 11, without amendments.
I have another comment on the amendment of the honorable Commissioner
Romulo about the exclusion of lines 21 to 23. With that amendment by
exclusion may I
suggest that on line 20, we add after housing, the words AND SERVICES.
Therefore, the lines will read: decent housing AND SERVICES at affordable
cost to
deserving low-income citizens . . . Will that be acceptable?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I accept that.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much.
May I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am referring to Section 10, particularly line
19, on the mention of Urban Land Reform and Housing Program. If the
intention
is to refer to the urban land reform decree issued by the past regime under
P.D. No. 1517, may I suggest that the words Land Reform and be
eliminated and
instead Urban Housing Program be substituted because we will be
constitutionalizing the decree issued by the past regime under Amendment
No. 6. I
mentioned the other day that even President Marcos did not implement his
own decree. There were subsequent PDs declaring Metro Manila an urban
land reform
area, but these were again modified to limit it to a hundred or so of the socalled depressed areas. If we retain this urban land reform, then we not only
assume the validity of P.D. No. 1517 which, in my opinion, is illegal and
unconstitutional, but we are even constitutionalizing it. Why should this 1986
Constitution make the presidential decrees of President Marcos during the
martial law regime a constitutional provision, or at least, giving it a
constitutional recognition which may even prevent the Congress to pass the
necessary legislation to modify or even repeal said P.D. No. 1517?
I hope that the members of the Committee will consider the deletion of the
line and if not, at least the words Land Reform and, so that it may remain
as
Urban Housing Program.
MR. BENGZON: We will consider it, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: With regard to Section 11, I do not understand why we have to
distinguish between dwellers with a claim and dwellers without a claim.
There
was a question propounded by Commissioner Davide on whether there is no
intention to repeal or amend the provisions on lease so we will have a
contractual
lessee. But there are also circumstances where there is forcible entry,
unlawful detainer or some squatters do not have any color of right

whatsoever and
these are all governed by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. As stated before,
there is an article in the Revised Penal Code on all other forms of trespass.
There is P.D. No. 772, I believe, which penalizes squatting and another
presidential decree which penalizes squatting on public agricultural lands.
There
should be no order of ejectment or eviction unless there is an action in court
and a judgment or a decision has been rendered. An eviction or an order of
execution follows a judgment.
All these are governed by ordinary existing laws of the Revised Penal Code
and the Rules of Court Why are we going to put in the Constitution certain
provisions that may render nugatory or even have the effect of repeal of
these existing provisions of law? I suggest that Section 11 be eliminated.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, be fore we proceed further, we will suspend the
session for a few minutes.
It was 4:43 p.m.
Social Justice to please come forward.
How many speakers do we still have, Commissioner Sarmiento?
MR. SARMIENTO: We have about eight speakers more, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Who will be the first?
Commissioner Villegas be recognized for one clarificatory remark.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the remarks of Commissioner Padilla led

me to reconsider some of the phrases contained in Section 10, and let me
just give a
background. In our study of the housing problem in this country, first of all,
we found out that housing is basically an urban problem and there are three
markets which, I am sure, have been considered by the Committee. There is
a so-called open market housing which is completely subject to the law of
supply
and demand anywhere. People belonging to the high-income and upper
middle-income families can actually afford to buy at the present cost.
The second category is called economic housing. This is housing that is
affordable only if there are some subsidies especially in the area of interest
to
the buyers. So, what the SSS, the GSIS and the other financial institutions
have been doing over the years was to address the programs to the so-called
economic housing sector.
The remarks of Commissioner Padilla reminded me that, really, what we are
trying to address in this specific section of the Article is what is known in
technical parlance as social housing a type of housing that can be made
available to low-income families only, almost as; dole out; that one cannot
really expect these low income families to afford paying for these houses no
matter how low the cost may be. That is why, historically, people have
realized that when they talk about low-cost housing, they really mean nocost housing because the low-income families who are earning P2,001 a
month, for
example, can never afford even the lowest cost of housing that is made
available. And so, after the remarks of Commissioner Padilla, I was thinking
that we
delete the words Urban Land Reform and instead this line should read: a
continuing SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM THAT WILL MAKE DECENT HOUSING
AVAILABLE; and
delete at affordable cost. It is very clear that we can never make social
housing affordable to low-income families. So, it is an actual recognition that
the State will have to make units available either through rentals or through
actual doleouts to deserving low-income families. I think this is really the
intent of this specific section. We are not talking here economic housing
because this can be addressed by the appropriate policies of the SSS, the
GSIS
and, if we will remember, even the DBP was very much involved with some
actual subsidy being given by government financial institutions, which I do
not
think we are really concerned with.
So, that would be my remark on Section 10.
MR. MONSOD: May we just respond a bit?

MR. VILLEGAS: We would like to be enlightened.
MR. MONSOD: We were aware that social housing was necessary for a certain
segment of the population. What we wanted to avoid was a provision that
constitutionalized a doleout. That is why we put affordable cost. But it does
not mean that the total cost of the housing will not need State subsidy. We
just wanted to state that whatever can be afforded by the recipients should
be paid. If that is not sufficient to cover the real cost of the housing, then
that is when the State comes in. I guess this is parallel to our ideas on
agrarian reform where again we have that idea that if the farmer cannot
afford
it, then the State has to step in in order to make up the difference between
the actual cost and the affordable cost.
With respect to line 19, the intent of the Committee is to cover more than
mere housing. We think that Commissioner Padillas comments on the
identification with Mr. Marcos program of urban land reform can be avoided
if we use something else, maybe a land-use program or land-use and
housing
program. These are some of the terminologies we are considering. But we
take the comment that it should not refer or it should not appear to refer or
be
identical with Mr. Marcos urban land reform program but the coverage is
certainly more than just Pure housing. It includes a land-use plan.
MS. NIEVA: In this connection, we would like to state that we are not limiting
this idea to strictly ready-made housing but also to the development of
sites and services.
MR. VILLEGAS: Infrastructure, Madam President, before the word services.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, because, I think, the new trend of just providing sites and
services and encouraging the urban poor dwellers to build their own homes
as
they increase their incomes, adding another room as they go along, has been
found to be effective in giving shelter to those who otherwise could never
have
afforded shelter. I think there have been quite a number of studies on this,
and they have identified the cost of developing some 85,000 new sites and
services each year in all urban centers. So, I think the Gentleman is not only
speaking of complete housing per se but improving the sites and services
and
developing them.
MR. VILLEGAS: These are actually enumerated on lines 21 to 23.

MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: As regards Section 12, I mentioned the findings from studies
on the housing problem; namely, that there is no real housing problem in the
rural areas and people in rural areas are very flexible in adopting to their
appropriate housing conditions. That is why I questioned the need for Section
12, unless there is a specific aspect of the agrarian reform program that we
want to specify. But I think that is better left to future legislations on
agrarian reform.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Foz be
recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, in connection with what has been discussed
about socialized housing for the urban poor, I wonder if the Committee has
come across
a particular report submitted by a task force on reorganization which is
assigned to the Ministry of Human Settlements, headed by Mr. Horacio
Morales,
regarding its findings on housing for the urban poor. Anyway, the findings of
that task force headed by Mr. Morales are, among others: First, they have
gone into some computations and, in consultation with the representatives of
the urban poor in Metro Manila, they have come up with a specific cost of a
small lot for an urban poor family. They have come up with a figure of a little
over P8,000 for a lot. And according to the urban poor representatives,
they can afford an P8,000 lot and all that they are asking is to be given this
lot which they are willing to pay on an installment basis and they are going
to build the house by themselves according, of course, to certain specified
standards to be supplied by the government. So, it is not going to be a
give-away thing. The urban poor are willing to be given the lots at a very low
cost; not only lots, of course, but the place should be provided with water
and electricity, and the cost estimated is a little over P8,000. According to
them, all they want, after being assigned a lot, is to have security from
demolition. That is all they are asking for.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just make a short comment. We
appreciate the studies that have been made on that subject, but we would
like to be
careful not to give the impression that there is absolutely no need for a
subsidy. I think we have to face that reality rather squarely, that in many
cases, maybe in most cases, there might be a need for a subsidy. And to
assume that there is no need for a subsidy might foreclose a housing
program for
the urban poor.
MR. FOZ: May I add, Madam President, that another finding of the task force
is that about 75 percent of the squatters in Metro Manila are renting their
squatter huts from other people, in other words, from the professional
squatters; and only the 25 percent of the squatters are themselves the real
squatters; 75 percent are paying from P100 to P150 per month to
professional squatters.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask the Commissioners to be brief
with their answers, interpellations, questions or amendments to give time to
the
Committee to deliberate on the proposed amendments. I think we have to
end early to give them more time.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is next?
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Maambong
be recognized for his brief amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is really very brief, Madam President. I was made to
understand in my interpellation a day or so ago that while the Committee is
adopting the principles of the urban land reform of the previous
administration, it has been properly explained that they are not equating this
with the
previous urban land reform decrees like P.D. Nos. 1517 and 1893. However, I
notice that in Section 10, line 11, when the Committee used the words
Urban
Land Reform and Housing, the Committee capitalized the first letters of the
words urban, land, reform and housing. This to me indicates a
specific urban land reform program. And the only land reform program that I
could think of is the urban land reform and housing program of the previous
administration.
And so, my very short amendment is not to capitalize these words because it
will indicate that these refer to the urban land reform and housing program
of
the previous administration.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President, we appreciate it.

MR. MAAMBONG: On this score, I just might add that this urban land reform
program, as far as my interpretation is concerned and as far as the City of
Manila is concerned, did not really start with the previous administration. I
have with me the excerpt of RA 1162.
MR. BENGZON: We have that material, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. And this Act provides for the expropriation of landed
estates or haciendas or lands which form part thereof in the City of Manila,
their
subdivision into small lots and the sale of such lots at cost or their lease on
reasonable terms or for other purposes. This indicates that even before the
previous administration,. there was already an urban land reform program. Is
that the understanding also of the Committee, that as far as the City of
Manila is concerned, the urban land reform program did not really start with
the previous administration, but it started way back with RA 1162?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. We have all those documents.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you very much.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Regalado
be recognized for a very short amendment.
MR. REGALADO: It will be very short and sweet.
Madam President, I notice here that under Section 10, in relation to Section
12, there is a distinction between the urban poor and the rural poor. It would
appear that in the case of the urban poor, not only will they be afforded lots
but they will also be given low-cost housing at affordable cost and possibly
with governmental subsidy. Whereas in the case of Section 12, the rural poor,
since they are supposed to be appended to in the context of agrarian reform
program, they may possibly just be, at the most, entitled to a home lot as
envisaged in RA 3844.
We have been talking about urban poor and rural poor, and the Supreme
Court itself has admitted that there is a little difficulty in determining
whether it
is an urban area or a rural area. Right in the Metropolitan Manila area, there
are still many areas which are planted to rice and the same thing in the
provinces.
So, to be brief about it and possibly to help the Committee, I will furnish
them a copy of that decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Fabia vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, November 21, 1984, so that in their
preparation of their report, they may take into account how the Supreme
Court considered
the distinction between urban and rural areas.
Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: For a short amendment, Madam President. After the word
disabled on line 11, page 4, add the following: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE
FREE MEDICAL
CARE TO PAUPERS.
I will explain for one minute only. Madam President. This is a provision that
implements the role of the State as parens patriae. I do not like to accept
the argument that the State has no funds. I think that where there is a will,
there is a way. If we have money for junkets, the government can create
funds
from various sources, like special levies, residence taxes and postage
stamps. Paupers have acquired an established meaning in jurisprudence,
Madam
President. They are basically those who have no source of livelihood, and
even if they have sources of livelihood, they are living on a hand-to-mouth
existence. Because of the economic turmoil which was brought about by the
repressive and corrupt Marcos regime, the number of paupers has increased
considerably. While many of them have developed resistance to disease
because of antibodies developed by poverty, when disease strikes, they
depend on the
charity of others, and when that charity is inadequate, they simply die.
So, I hope the members of the Committee will consider favorably my
recommended provision.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you, we shall do so.

recognized, this time for his short amendments.
I have several amendments on Sections 13, 14 and 15, but these are just
realignments to clarify the provision. I am more interested in two new
sections.
One would be on minors and it is similar to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Sarmiento. The Committee may take them together. It shall
read: THE
STATE SHALL PROVIDE A SPECIAL PROTECTION TO MINORS ESPECIALLY
WORKING MINORS AND SHALL PROHIBIT THEIR EXPLOITATION AND ENSURE
THEIR FULL DEVELOPMENT.
The other will be on social security, and this is now on page 5 of my
submitted document. It reads: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SOCIAL
SECURITY
SERVICES, RELIEF FROM UNEMPLOYMENT SUCH AS UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE AND OTHER; SOCIAL WELFARE SERVICES FOR THE OLD.
There is a proposal by Commissioner Guingona to add after OLD the words
THE AGED AND THE SICK OR DISABLED.
All the others, I leave to the Committee to consider.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, since Commissioner Davide mentioned
his proposed amendment, may I just briefly read the proposed amendment
introduced by
Commissioners Villacorta, Quesada and myself. It will read: CHILDREN SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROPER CARE, NUTRITION, A RELEVANT AND QUALITY
EDUCATION AS
WELL AS PROTECTION FROM ALL FORMS OF NEGLECT, CRUELTY AND
EXPLOITATION PARTICULARLY IN EMPLOYMENT HARMFUL TO THEIR PHYSICAL,
MENTAL OR MORAL WELL-BEING.
We distributed copies of this proposed amendment to the members of the
Committee for their proper consideration. We believe that this is one sector
that
should be given special care and attention.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, and we shall try to reconcile this with the Declaration of
Principles on family rights, the youth and children. There are two others.
May I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Natividad be recognized.
Even without being reminded, I will make it very brief. This is in connection
with Section 14, page 4. I have drawn a remark from Commissioner Quesada
that
she also considers it a concern of the State to take care of the problems on
drug abuse because this is not only a danger to physical health but to mental
health also, especially of the youth.
Therefore, after the end of the sentence in Section 14, I am proposing an
additional sentence to read: A PROGRAM FOR THE PREVENTION OF DRUG
ABUSE SHALL BE
UNDERTAKEN BY THE STATE.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Natividad a few
questions?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Gladly.
MS. QUESADA: Of course, the Gentleman is aware that there is an existing
drug abuse prevention program under the jurisdiction of the Dangerous
Drugs Board.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, Madam President, I happened to be the author of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. But what I mean here is for the State to emphasize
this
campaign and not to let up in this campaign because the problem is not
being solved.
The treatment approach, as well as the approach being undertaken now,
seems not to reduce the incidence of drug addiction. In one instance alone,
on the
addiction to marijuana, it seems that the mental health of the youth is being
affected. The latest findings on marijuana show that the brain is the one
being affected. I am a witness to many young people who are now in Bicutan
and other treatment centers, whose brain damages are serious because of
drug
addiction. And, therefore, because of this unabated drug situation, it is
important to emphasize this area of public service and, if possible, expand
the
services against drug addiction. I think no student in this country would say
that the drug addiction problem in this country has been solved already.
MS. QUESADA: Does the Gentleman not think that ordinary legislation would
be able to strengthen the existing drug abuse prevention program?
MR. NATIVIDAD: As a matter of fact, yes, I am the author of the law. What I
mean is a mandate from the Constitution, not only for the legislature to
update
our laws but also to inspire cooperation in a program of this nature because
this problem saps the vitality of the nation. A constitutional mandate would
help focus the States attention to a very serious malady in our society
affecting the old and the youth alike.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much.
We will take it up in the Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Romulo be
recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I only have a few perfecting amendments, so I will take it up
with the Committee after we adjourn so as not to delay anyone.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rosario
Braid be recognized for her integrated amendments.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you, Madam President

This is on Section 14. I propose to insert a phrase on lines 12 and 13, after
shall, to read: The State shall PROMOTE THE UTILIZATION OF INDIGENOUS
FOODS AND HEALTH PERSONNEL. This is in view of the fact that we would
like to promote the use of herbolarios, traditional midwives and traditional
foods.
If this is not acceptable, we could integrate this with Section 13, lines 7 and
8, and it will read establish and maintain an integrated and comprehensive
health care AND NUTRITION PROGRAM THAT SHALL PROMOTE UTILIZATION
OF INDIGENOUS FOODS AND HEALTH PERSONNEL.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I would like to make some comments on
the proposed amendment. Actually, when we talk about nutrition program,
that is already
covered in a comprehensive health program. That is one of the essential
services that the State should provide to the citizens. The concept of a
comprehensive health program also includes the concepts of utilization of
indigenous foods and the inculcation of scientific health practices. This would
also include the primary health care approach which is based on the
principles of appropriate health care technology, peoples participation,
intersectoral
linkages and a stress on the educational component of health program. So,
we would like the proponent to know that these are actually covered and we
will
be going into the details if we mention just a few of these components, such
as indigenous foods and health practices.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, my question will require a very brief
answer from Commissioner Quesada. May I know the meaning of these
words:
promote appropriate health, manpower development and research.
MS. QUESADA: When we talk about appropriate health, manpower
development, we refer to a national relevant and responsive health
manpower. Development
refers to how they are trained and how they are utilized so that they are
responsive to the health car needs of the country, instead of serving the
other
need of other developed countries. This would mean, among others, the
teaching of more prevention, instead of cure more community-based rather
than of
hospital orientation and more service rather than profits which should be the
undergirding principle of health professions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with the brief answers and brief
amendments, I move that we adjourn until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, before we adjourn, I would just like to put
on record that I would like to submit a more comprehensive presentation of
this
health provision so that it will be entered into the Journal, because we did not
have time to really explain just what are the concepts and underlying
principles of these health provisions.
MR. OPLE: I can save my question which is a very brief one until tomorrow, if
it is the desire of the body to adjourn now, provided I will be allowed to
ask a question of the Committee, especially Commissioner Quesada.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do we not have the question now so that the
Committee can go over whatever the question is?
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, with the indulgence of the Acting Floor
Leader.
We are talking about the promotion of health manpower. Is that correct?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: I have in mind some data that I have stored in my head as a
matter of professional duty until recently. It seems that, precisely, because of
the
rapid development of our health manpower, we now have about 12,000
unemployed nurses in the Philippines. Is that correct?
MS. QUESADA: I think there are more than 12,00t unemployed nurses.
MR. OPLE: Anyway, this is the officially recorded figure. And our nursing
schools every year graduate about 6,000 nurses, most of whom would
compete not
for jobs at home but for opportunities to work in the Middle East, the United
States and Europe. Would that be correct?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And at one time, this has impelled the Ministry of Health, the
Ministry of Labor and Employment and the Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sports
to consider closing some of these nursing schools because of the sheer glut
of graduates that they produce for jobs that do not exist in the Philippines.
Would that be correct?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And, therefore, when we speak of health manpower development,
the sponsor is not thinking of increasing the number of nursing schools and
aggravating the existing glut in the labor market for nurses.
MS. QUESADA: We are thinking of rationalizing health manpower
development.
MR. OPLE: I am glad to hear that.
Moreover, Commissioner Quesada is aware that there is an urgent demand
for nursing manpower in most of the rural health units of our country, and
most of
them do not want to go there. They want to congregate in the urban areas
waiting for opportunities to work here, but also, and this is more important,
to
scout for opportunities to go abroad. Is that not correct? 721
MS. QUESADA: Yes, that is so.
MR. OPLE: And so, the contemplation, of health manpower development is
really to rationalize this disturbing situation and to shift the emphasis from
quantity to quality.
MS. QUESADA: That is right. And this includes the reorientation of the
training or the education of our health professionals.
MR. OPLE. So that maybe the Committee will allow me in due time to present
a minor amendment that will reflect this concern for quality.
MS. QUESADA: We would welcome that, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: May we now ask the members of the Committee on Social Justice
to remain behind to put these amendments into shape. We will meet at the
South
Lounge.
Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I reiterate my motion for
adjournment?
morning.
It was 5:57 p.m.
Footnotes:
R.C.C. NO. 49
Wednesday, August 6, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:41 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, called the
session to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Joaquin G. Bernas.
PRAYER
FR. BERNAS: Hesus na aking kapatid, sa lupa namiy bumalik:
Iyong mukhay ibang-iba, hindi kita nakikilala.

Tulutan Mong aking mata mamulat sa katotohanan:
Ikaw, Poon, makikilala sa taong mapagkumbaba.
Hesus na aking kapatid, putikan man ang Iyong sapin,
Punit-punit ang Iyong damit, nawa Ikay mapasaakin.
Ikaw Hesus na aking kapatid, sa bukid Ka nagtatanim,
O sa palengke rin naman, Ikaw ay naghahanapbuhay.
Walang sinuman ang nabubuhay para sa sarili lamang;
Walang sinuman ang namamatay para sa sarili lamang.
Tayong lahat ay may pananagutan sa isat isa.
Tayong lahat ay tinipon ng Diyos na kapiling Niya.
Sa ating pagmamahalan at paglilingkod sa kanino man,
Tayo ay nagdadala ng balita ng kaligtasan.
Hesus na aking kapatid, tulutan Mong aking mata mamulat sa katotohanan:
Ikaw, Poon, makikilala sa taong mapagkumbaba.
Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present*
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of quorum.
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
previous session.
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move to proceed to the Reference of
Business.
motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication signed by Atty. Ramon Tagle, Executive Director, Family
Planning Organization of the Philippines, and nine others, proposing an
amendment to
Section 8 of Proposed Resolution No. 531, attaching thereto the registration
list of participants in the meeting of nongovernmental organizations involved
in the Philippine population program.
Communications from the Philippine Nurses Association; Adolescent Center,
Dagupan City; Philippine Association of the Deaf, Inc.; Kapatiran-Kaunlaran
Foundation, Inc.; Integrated Midwives Association of the Philippines, Inc.;
NORFIL Foundation, Inc.; and all Nations Womens Group signed by Ms.
Florida R.
Martinez and seven others, urging the Constitutional Commission to
incorporate in the Constitution provisions for the protection of Filipino
children,
youth and mothers.
Principles.
Letter from Atty. Leandro P. Garcia, 9th Floor, Strata 100 Building, Emerald
Avenue, Pasig, Metro Manila, submitting, for the consideration of the
Constitutional Commission, a summary or analysis of a personal survey of

public opinion on vital issues before the Constitutional Commission.
Communication from Ms. Ledelina A. Cruz of 105 Evangelista Street,
Santolan, Pasig, Metro Manila, and one hundred thirty-eight others with their
respective
addresses, urging the Constitutional Commission not to include in the
Constitution the United States Military Bases issue.
Communication signed by Ms. Carol Doria of Quezon City and thirty-two
others, mostly from Metropolitan Manila, seeking a constitutional provision
giving
the legislature the power to regulate foreign investments.
Letter from Ms. Isabel Oriol, c/o Oriol Marble Works, Tels. 833-7254/831-0906,
and eighty-two others, urging the Constitutional Commission to favor the
retention of the U.S. military bases in the Philippines after 1991 and to give
President Aquino the opportunity to renegotiate for better terms and
conditions favorable to the Philippines.
Communication from the Womens Health Care Foundation, Inc., 1589
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, signed by its Executive Director, Florence M.
Tadiar,
submitting, for the consideration of the Constitutional Commission, a
Statement on Womens Rights.
Letter from Mr. Hector L. Bisnar of 3 Kalamansi St., Matina, Davao City,
transmitting his suggestions and proposals regarding a new Constitution of
the
Philippines.
Communication from Ms. Fe Samaniego of 1070 cor. Roxas-Bautista Streets,
Singalong Subd., Manila, submitting, for consideration of the Constitutional
Commission, proposed provisions under the Declaration of Principles and
State Policies, attaching thereto some printed materials related to the
attainment
of world peace.
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Elly Velez Pamatong, 131 Aurora Blvd., San Juan, Metro
Manila, transmitting a resolution adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee of
Filipino-Canadians for Dual Citizenship, requesting the Constitutional
Commission to include in the Constitution a provision allowing Filipino
emigrants to
retain their citizenship upon being naturalized as citizens of another country,
and restoring Filipino citizenship to former Filipino citizens who have
lost it by acquiring citizenship from another country.
Communication from Mr. Jose Rojas and fifty-five others, urging the
Constitutional Commission to leave to the legislature regulation of foreign
investments
and to determine the areas where foreign investments will be welcome.
Communication from Ms. Norhata D.M. Alonto, submitting in behalf of Abdul
Khayr Alonto a position paper, entitled Autonomy of the People.

Communication from Mr. Vic Felipe, Editor, Manila Hotline Magazine, Room
404, Plywood Industries Bldg., T.M. Kalaw corner Mabini Streets, Ermita,
Manila,
submitting a proposal re: Edukasyong Tunay na MakaPilipino and Ang
Populasyon at ang Pambansang Kaunlaran, requesting the revival of the real
Pilipino
education (ABAKADA instead of ABC), and limiting the number of children for
every couple to be able to meet/provide their childrens needs.
Communication from Ms. Marisse C. Reyes, Correspondence Secretary, Office
of the President, transmitting letters from the following: Gabriel Ma. J. Lopez
of 105 Kentucky Avenue, S.E., Washington D.C. 20003, proposing that Filipino
citizens residing abroad be allowed to vote in national elections; Mr.
Francisco L. Balingao, c/o Mr. Ely Cruz Ramirez, Radio Action, DZXL,
Intramuros, Manila, proposing that the Philippine statehood issue be
submitted to the
people in the plebiscite for the ratification of the new Constitution; Mr. Juan L.
Cabida and 75 others of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, proposing that the
Philippine statehood issue be submitted to the people in a plebiscite in the
forthcoming local elections; MARILAG, proposing a change in the Agrarian
Reform Code in line with capitalism and free enterprise, among others;
Dumaguete Fellowship of Reconciliation, Silliman University, opposing
compulsory
religious instruction; and Mr. Pablo B. David of San Juan Nepomuceno, Betis,
Guagua, Pampanga, proposing a Constitution that is for freedom, justice and
equality, and authority of the State to put order on the first three, and saying
that the power balance in this part of the world occasioned by U.S.
military pressure be not disturbed at this time.
Communication from Mr. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., Deputy Executive
Secretary, Office of the President, transmitting a letter of Mr. Apolonio G.
Ramos of
42 Mindanao Street, Filipinas Village, Marikina, Metro Manila, submitting the
following proposals, among others: a presidential type of government with a
unicameral legislature composed of elected members only; a six-year

presidential term with no reelection; the President can only declare martial
law for a
specific period and with the concurrence of three-fourths of the legislature;
the President and other officials shall not be immune from suit; the
President shall not have law-making powers; political plurality rather than
the two-party system shall be practised; the creation of a Commission on
Appointments; the barangay system shall be abolished; municipal, city and
provincial councils shall likewise be abolished; revision of the Local
Government
Code to provide for uniform local laws and ordinances; the Supreme Court
shall have administrative control and supervision of all courts; provisions to
improve the civil service and provisions providing for electoral reforms.
Letter from Mr. Luciano G. Benigno of San Pascual, Masbate, suggesting that
in the distribution of arable lands of the public domain priority be given to
landless farmers; limiting to 50 hectares pasture land grants to individuals or
corporations, and the rigid reclassification of public lands.
Letter from Mr. Eufrasio B. Tepace of Catubig, Samar, suggesting the
elimination of local elections for provincial, municipal and barangay officials,
saying that these are expensive as well as divisive in nature, and proposing
that these officials undergo competitive examinations to qualify for
selection.
Letter from Mr. Desiderio C. Villanueva of 1140 P. Villanueva Street, Butuan
City, suggesting that the State shall pursue a national program to help
workers establish their own small-scale industries in the countrysides and to
promote the formation of cooperatives among grain farmers and millers.
Letter from Mr. Norberto N. Caparas for the Bayanihan Homeowners and
Residents Association, No. 655 Kaunlaran Street, Barangay Commonwealth,
Quezon City,
proposing that government lands occupied by the squatters be donated to
actual occupants, subject to certain conditions.
DEFERMENT OF CONSIDERATION
OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534
MR. RAMA: For consideration this morning is the Article on Social Justice
which was amended yesterday. However, the clean copy of the Article, as
amended
or with the proposed amendments, has not yet been distributed.
So, the Members would like first to see the clean copy with the proposed
amendments before this Article on Social Justice be taken up during the
period of
amendments.
In the meantime, Madam President, I move that we defer the consideration
of the Article on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we defer for consideration the
The honorable Chairman, Commissioner Nieva, is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, how long will the deferment take?
THE PRESIDENT: How long does the Committee need?
MS. NIEVA: We worked on and finalized this up until past eight last night and
copies are being distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: So, it is just a question of distributing the copies.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think we are more or less ready, and we shall give everyone
a chance to go over the amended report.
THE PRESIDENT: May we consider it an hour from now, about eleven oclock?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a motion to defer consideration of the Article on
Social Justice.
approved.
MR. RAMA: In the meantime, Madam President, I ask that we take up for
Second Reading some Articles that are ready for Second Reading. For this
purpose, I
ask that the Steering Committee Chairman, Commissioner Bengzon, be
recognized.
Good morning, Madam President. We have finished our deliberations on the
Articles on the Executive and the Legislative. Except for the wording with
respect
to the staggering of the term of the Senators, the Article on the Legislative is
ready for approval on Second Reading.
Before I make my motion, Madam President, Commissioner Davide will make
an explanation.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the matter that is left is the staggering of the
term of the Senate which will be in Section 3. It is the proposal that the
first Senators elected will be divided into two groups: The first, consisting of
12, to serve for six years; and the second, consisting of 12, to serve for
three years.
However, there is a need to reconcile it with dates of the first and second
elections to accomplish synchronization. If the body will allow later an
amendment to accomplish the objective of synchronization and the
staggering of the term, we can proceed with the voting on Second Reading.
However, I invite the attention of the body that on page 2 of the amended
draft, there is a space between organizations and the party on line 13 as
a
result of the Committees deletion of the words as provided by law because
these are merely a repetition of the same words on line 11 of the same page.
On page 3, line 14, the original wording is except the sectoral and the party
list representatives. We failed to delete the sectoral to harmonize it
with what has been approved under the Monsod amendment. On lines 18 to
21, we seek for the deletion of the last phrase and every six or three years
respectively. That should not appear in the final draft for Second Reading.
So, we request the body to approve this motion to delete all the words on
line
21, page 3, and to put a period(.) after may on line 20. After that, the
Article on the Legislative would be ready for approval on Second Reading
with
the reservation made for Section 3 on page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the deletion of the words
mentioned by the Chairman? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
APPROVAL OF C.R. NO. 22
ON SECOND READING
(Article on the Legislative/National Assembly)
MR. BENGZON: On the basis of the reservation made by the Chairman of the
Committee on the Legislative, I move that this body vote on Second Reading
on the
Article on the Legislative.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the honorable
Chairman of the Steering Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is
approved.
As many as are in favor of the proposed Article on the Legislative to be
incorporated in the new Constitution, please raise their hand. (Several
Members
raised their hand.)
hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (Two Members raised
their hand.)
MR. GARCIA: I would like to register my abstention, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 32 votes in favor, 3 against, and 2
abstentions.
The proposed Article on the Legislative is approved on Second Reading, with
the reservations made by the honorable Chairman.
CONSIDERATION OF
Continuation
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Steering Committee is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: We are also finished with the deliberations on the Article on
the Executive. May I request, however, that the Vice-Chairman of the
Committee
on the Executive, the Honorable Florenz Regalado, be recognized for some
explanations before I make my motion.
The amended copy of Proposed Resolution No. 517, now in the possession of
the Commissioners, has some omissions on the resolutions which were
accepted by
the Committee but which we had to defer, and which, however, were
eventually ironed out in the executive caucus yesterday. I will ask the
Commissioners to
kindly look at their respective copies so that I can read the insertions or
additions.
On page 1, line 23, we will notice that there is a blank space. That should be
filled with the words JUNE NEXT so that the line will read: NOON ON THE
THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE NEXT FOLLOWING THE. That was an oversight.
With respect to page 2, between lines 7 and 8, a new paragraph will have to
be added. The additional paragraph, which is actually the amendment of
Commissioner Jamir accepted by the Committee and taken up in the caucus
yesterday, will read as follows: NO PERSON WHO HAS SERVED AS
PRESIDENT FOR MORE
THAN FOUR YEARS SHALL BE QUALIFIED FOR ELECTION TO THE SAME OFFICE
AT ANY OTHER TIME. This is to put it parallel with the elected President who,
after his
term expires, can no longer run for reelection. This contemplates also the
situation where the President dies, let us say, a year or less than two years in
office, and the Vice-President now becomes the President. This prohibition is
intended to bar the Vice-President, who thereby becomes President under
that
situation, from again running for the Office of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, Commissioner Regalado, this particular Jamir
amendment has been approved.
MR. REGALADO: It was accepted by the Committee but not yet approved by
the body.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will have to submit it to the body.
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote, I would like to ask a question. If I remember
right, the original proposal regarding this matter of a Vice-President acting as
President in case the President dies was that any person who had served as
President for more than three years would no longer run for election. And
three
years was the period stated in that original proposal because that is one-half
of the term of six years. I am not aware that the three years was changed to
four years, so I would like to know when this was accomplished.
MR. REGALADO: I asked Commissioner Jamir about that yesterday, and he
said he had amended his proposal. At any rate, Commissioner Jamir can
explain to us.
I know it was already three years. But later he said he wanted the term to be
four years. That is similar to the Twenty-First Amendment to the United
States Constitution. So, I think Commissioner Jamir can explain the change
from three to four years.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I really opted for three years, but upon the
suggestion of many Commissioners, among whom are Commissioners
Davide and Foz, and
several others, I agreed to increase the term to four years instead of three.
MR. RODRIGO: I have some questions for clarification.
So, if a President dies a day less than four years and the Vice-President
serves as President one day less than four years, that Vice-President can run
for
reelection; is that correct?
MR. REGALADO: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: So, if he is elected for another six years, he would serve for
ten consecutive years?
MR. REGALADO: That is correct.
MR. REGALADO: May we put that to a vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman please read once more the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. REGALADO: That would be a new paragraph between lines 7 and 8 of the
amended copies in the possession of the Commissioners, to read: NO
PERSON WHO HAS
SERVED AS PRESIDENT FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS SHALL BE QUALIFIED
FOR ELECTION TO THE SAME OFFICE AT ANY OTHER TIME.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular amendment,
hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor, 5 against and 1 abstention; the proposed
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, on page 4, line 8, after the word source
there are words in parentheses because we still have to iron out the matter
of
salaries of the President and the Vice-President. But yesterday during the
executive caucus, it was agreed that there would also be a transitory
provision
with respect to their salaries. So, the proposed amendment by substitution in
lieu of the words in parentheses will read as follows: THE CONGRESS SHALL
PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE ANNUAL SALARIES OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE
VICE-PRESIDENT. The salaries of the incumbent President and Vice-President
will be the
subject of the Transitory Provisions of which I request Commissioner Suarez
to please take note.
To repeat, Madam President, after the word source on line 8, page 4, we
add this sentence: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE ANNUAL
SALARIES OF
THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, may I ask a question?
MR. GASCON: Does this mean, therefore, that it is possible for Congress to
increase or decrease the salary of the President within the six-year term
every
year?
MR. REGALADO: No. The preceding sentence reads as follows:
No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
the term of the incumbent during which such increase was approved.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular proposed
hand.)
MR. REGALADO: Lastly, Madam President, on page 5, line 21, the phrase one
hundred eighty days is proposed to be changed to EIGHTEEN MONTHS, such
that the
entire last sentence of Section 10 will read as follows: No special election
shall be called if the vacancy occurs within EIGHTEEN MONTHS before the
date
of the next presidential election.
The reason for this is that, as reported to us by Commissioner Monsod, to
hold a presidential election would involve an outlay or appropriation of about
P270 million. So, it would entail P270 million to elect a President within 180
days before the date of the next presidential election, meaning six months.
So, in the interest of economy, it was felt that this provision will apply if the
vacancy occurs within 18 months before the date of the next presidential
election.
MR. MONSOD: Just a point of clarification. I am afraid I did not quote that
figure of P270 million for a presidential election. But it does not detract
from the argument because there would still be quite a bit of expense. I just
wanted to correct the figure.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, will the Gentleman restate the amendment?
MR. REGALADO: On page 5, line 21, instead of one hundred eighty days,
we change it to EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
May I make some point of clarification from the Committee? On page 2, line
23, does the phrase vote of a majority of all the members of Congress
mean
voting separately or voting jointly?
MR. REGALADO: The Chairman is of the opinion that it is voting separately.
On page 3, lines 16 to 19, it is provided:
The Congress shall provide by law for the case of death, permanent disability
or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph and
the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a
President or a Vice-President shall have qualified.
This is the same as the provision on page 4, lines 28 to 32 and on page 5 up
to line 3. Is this not a repetition of what we intend to have in the matter of
succession?
MR. REGALADO: No, Section 9, lines 28 et sequentia, refers to the case of an
Acting President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, it is the same in the succession.
MR. REGALADO: Whereas, in the first situation that the Gentleman referred
to, it refers to an elected President and Vice-President. There are three
situations under this Article wherein there can be an Acting President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Section 5, page 3, lines 16 to 20, refers to the succession
where the President and the Vice-President shall have been disabled or shall
have been removed or died in office and the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall take his place. In the event
that
the two are also disqualified, then Congress shall provide by law who should
act as President. Section 9, lines 28 to 32, still speaks of Congeals to
provide by law who shall act as President in the case that the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives fail to qualify as
such. Is
this not a repetition?
MR. REGALADO: Section 5 refers to the situation where the President-elect
and the Vice-President-elect become incapacitated or die before they have
assumed
their office or before they have qualified thereto. Section 9, on the other
hand, refers to death, permanent incapacity or resignation from the office of
the President or the Vice-President during the tenure or after either of them
has assumed office.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you .
On page 8, lines 31 to 34, is this provision still necessary after we provide on
lines 28 to 30 that the President is vested to appoint minor officials as
called for in this Constitution?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, because while the Presidents power of appointment is
plenary, it is subject to limitations and classifications by the Congress. That is
why we provide here that the President shall appoint all other officers of the
government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law to
avoid
any hiatus or any lacuna in the matter of appointment, and those whom he
may be specifically authorized by law to appoint. Then on line 31, there is a
little classification there. The Congress may by law vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank either in the President alone, or in the courts,
or in the heads of departments, or in the heads of agencies, commissions or
boards. That would be a matter already for Congress to classify and specify.
MR. REGALADO: Incidentally, Madam President, I will inform the body in
advance that, for purposes of Third Reading, we are furnishing them with
copies of
the same Article, rearranged and renumbered to make them in more logical
sequence but containing exactly the same substantive provisions. As
prepared by
Commissioners Maambong, Davide and myself, the copy being distributed is
merely a realignment to make the presentation in more logical sequence.
recognized for a question of clarification.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a very minor clarification, Madam President, regarding
the approved amendment on page 5, line 21, changing 180 days to 18
months The
figure of P270 million cited as the cost of the presidential or vice-presidential
election was attributed to Commissioner Monsod. I am afraid I was the one
who cited that figure to Commissioner Regalado, considering the testimonies
of officials of the Commission on Elections and the officials of the Budget
Commission. I am sorry that it was attributed to Commissioner Monsod. It
actually came from me, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, this is just a matter of style and for the
purpose of clarity. On page 9, lines 11 to 12, it reads:
The Congress voting jointly by a vote of at least a majority of all its members
in regular or special session may revoke such proclamation of suspension
which revocation shall not be set aside by the President or upon the initiative
of the President extend the same for the period . . .
The way it is phrased, extend seems to be a verb related to revocation and
not to Congress. So, may I suggest to the Committee that we put a period (.)
after shall not be set aside by the President. Then start with another
sentence, Congress may, upon the initiative of the President, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by Congress . . .
Will the Committee consider that, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: What page is this, please?
MR. VILLACORTA: This is on page 7 lines 29 to 32, Section 16.
MR. REGALADO: I think we are using different texts.
MR. VILLACORTA.: Am I using a different copy?
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Gentleman has the old one.
MR. REGALADO: The Gentleman should use the one with the words As
Amended on the upper right-hand corner.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, Madam President. I will just go to the Committee to
make my correction later on.
Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: With regard to the powers of the President as Commander-inChief of the Armed Forces and, in particular, the power to call out the Armed
Forces to suppress lawless violence, the President has two other powers
the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
power to
proclaim martial law. Madam President, when I interpellated the members of
the Committee as to the possible distinction between these three situations,
they particularly Commissioner Regalado said that it could be
entertained during the period of amendments. When I was then proposing
this distinction
between the suspension of the writ and the proclamation of martial law, I
was prevented from so doing on the observation of Commissioner Bernas
that in the
discussion of the Bill of Rights, the issue of the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus has already been decided. But I recall that
when we were discussing the Bill of Rights, particularly the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, Commissioner Bernas stated, and I
quote from the July 17 session:
Perhaps the better place to discuss this is in the Article on the Executive
because the Gentleman placed this in the total context of the
Commander-in-Chief powers of the President.
When I was clarifying the distinction between the suspension of the writ and
proclamation of martial law which should be discussed more thoroughly in
our
deliberations on the executive department, Commissioner Bernas said that
could not be done unless the Rules is suspended and a motion for
reconsideration
is filed on the provision in the Bill of Rights or the suspension of the writ. I
disagreed with that position of Commissioner Bernas as inconsistent and
unfair because it was not possible at that time during the period of
amendments of the Article on the Executive to ask for a suspension of the
Rules and
for a rediscussion of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the Bill of
Rights. But the Chair ruled without further arguments that I was out of
order because the decision had been made regarding the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus in the Bill of Rights.
Madam President, I agree with the provisions of the Article on the Executive,
except this section on the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces, because through that technicality, we were not able to
discuss fully the distinction, which I was trying to make, between the two
situations the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and
the power to proclaim martial law.

FR. BERNAS: Since I was alluded to, may I say a few words?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may please proceed.
FR. BERNAS: In the discussion we had on the Bill of Rights, the only subject
matter that was under consideration was the power to suspend the privilege
of
the writ of habeas corpus. As everyone will recall, in the provision on the Bill
of Rights, while there is a limitation on the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, there is no indication whatsoever as to
who would suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. That is taken
up in the Article on the Executive.
When the matter of making a distinction between the three powers of the
President as Commander-in-Chief was brought up during the discussion on
the Bill of
Rights, I said that the proper place to discuss it was in the discussion of the
executive power. That, I said, was the proper place to discuss the
distinction between these three powers of the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus when we discussed the Bill of Rights.
When we were discussing the Article on the Executive, I recall very distinctly
that Commissioner Padilla did try to make a distinction. I recognized the
distinction, and I thought that he would offer a presentation of the Article on
the Commander-in-Chief powers where there would be a division into three
parts. There was an opportunity for that; it was never done. And in the
course of our discussion, we discussed very thoroughly what the basis for the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was; we debated
whether we should eliminate insurrection and imminent danger of invasion,
insurrection or rebellion. We debated that very thoroughly; we voted on that
a number of times. When I made a motion on a point of order, the point of
order was precisely on the fact that we had thoroughly discussed the basis
for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and we had
voted on that. The President upheld the point of order raised.
I just want to bring this out because the suggestion is being made that I sort
of reneged on what I said while we were discussing the Bill of Rights. When
we were discussing the Bill of Rights, we were not discussing the powers of
the President. We were discussing the right to the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, not the distinct rights of the President as Commander-inChief of the Armed Forces.

MR. PADILLA: The issue was the elimination of the words or imminent
danger thereof. Commissioner Bernas says I did not make any proposal for
the
distinction between the suspension of the writ and the proclamation of
martial law. Actually, I submitted two concrete proposals to cover said two
situations and I recall that I even proposed to insert among the grounds for
the suspension of the writ subversion and sedition, in addition to imminent
danger of rebellion or invasion, because the declaration of martial law was
then limited to actual invasion or actual rebellion. On my suggestion not only
to reinsert imminent danger thereof but also to add subversion or
sedition, the honorable Commissioner Bernas stated that it was out of order
because
that matter had already been decided in the discussion on the Bill of Rights,
and that under the Article on the Executive, we could no longer amend or
reinsert the grounds for such suspension, particularly the phrase or
imminent danger thereof. I had beforehand warned the members of the
Committee that I
was going to make a distinction between the suspension of the writ and the
declaration of martial law, which was welcomed during the interpellations. It
is
not correct for Commissioner Bernas to say that I did not make any concrete
proposal. I actually did propose two sentences one on suspension of the
writ
and the other on proclamation of martial law. But my proposal unfortunately
was not considered and much less discussed because of that technicality
that my
proposal on suspension was out of order and which, unfortunately, the Chair
sustained, to which I said, I respect the decision of the Chair although I do
not agree with it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Steering Committee is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I bring back the discussion now to the Article on the
Executive, page 7.
Commissioner Villacorta and the Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee,
Commissioner Regalado, have already finished their coordination on this.
May I
ask Commissioner Regalado to read lines 30 and 31.
On page 7, starting on line 29, the provision will read: which revocation shall
not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President,
CONGRESS MAY extend SUCH PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION for a period
to be determined by Congress . . . It makes clearer the intention and does
not involve a
very long sentence and expresses the substance of what was accepted by
the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman please repeat the provision?
MR. REGALADO: After dent of the word President on line 30, put a period
(.). Then insert CONGRESS MAY between President and extend and add
SUCH
PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION.
So, I will repeat from line 26: The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at
least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, CONGRESS MAY
extend
SUCH PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION for a period to be determined by
Congress . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: May I suggest the insertion of the words CONGRESS MAY IN
THE SAME MANNER, so as to emphasize that it will also be Congress voting
jointly and
there would also be a need of at least a majority vote of all its Members for
extension.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment to the
amendment?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, the amendment is accepted; it makes the provision
clearer.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I just want to make a statement for the record that I am still
very unhappy about the words voting jointly. I said I think it is very much
against the very basic idea of bicameralism. I still think that Congress,
whenever it acts, since it is a bicameral body composed of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, must vote separately.
MR. BENGZON: May we vote now, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment on lines
30 and 31 of page 7? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
ON SECOND READING
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, on the basis of all these arrangements and
adjustments made, I move that the body vote on the Article on the
Executive, as
amended, on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Proposed Resolution No. 517,
hand.)
The results show 33 votes in favor and 8 against; the proposed Article on the
Executive is approved on Second Reading.
MS. QUESADA: May I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada may proceed.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, last Wednesday, July 30. I voted no to this
amendment and I still vote no on Second Reading because then we would
hand on a
silver platter to any power-driven Filipino President in the future the
opportunity to reinstall a one-man rule in this country. So much has been
said
about the evil and corruption. the venality and utter disregard for human
values that the Filipino people suffered these last 14 years. We at the ConCom
have conscientiously worked out provisions to ensure that such arbitrary rule
and abuse of presidential power will never again be easily repeated.
This overriding concern was uppermost in the minds of the people who
participated in our public hearings here in Metro Manila as elsewhere in this
country.
They were happy to note that we at the Con-Com would articulate their
desire to eliminate every possibility that another dictator would ever rule
over them
again.
It was, therefore, with a heavy heart that I witnessed the 180-degree
turnabout of the Committee who worked so hard to incorporate in the charter
the
proper mechanisms that would eliminate such possibility.
Madam President, I wish to put on record that I have opted not to grant the
Office of the President such power, regardless of all the measures by
Congress
and the Supreme Court provided in the Article to rectify any such presidential
act.
Historical precedents within living memory have demonstrated the
ineffectiveness and impotency of such fiscalizing measures. A power-mad
dictator,
exemplified by countless historical examples from Hitler to Batista to Marcos,
would simply abolish the judiciary and padlock Congress and send all the
dissenters to the stockade. That is a reality that proponents of the
amendment seemed to have forgotten.
Madam President, a wise man from Spain, the philosopher George
Santayana, wrote once that Those who forget the past are doomed to
repeat it. In the same
vein the columnist of a popular daily titled his column, They Never Learn.
The attribution is to the Constitutional Commission three days after the
victorious passage of the amendment.
Unfortunately, those who learned their lessons and did not forget the past
were only in the minority. It is comforting to know, however, that a great
many
Filipinos outside this hall share the minority opinion. Regretfully, they are not
empowered to cast their vote on this issue.
MR. REGALADO: The Committee has asked me to give a brief response
because we might be misunderstood. As the proceedings on the floor
showed and as it
appears in the minutes of that particular session, it was expressly made clear
that to meet a very serious danger of actual invasion or rebellion, the
President is now granted the power of immediate response by declaring
martial law or suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Yet, the following day, if
the
Congress finds that the act of the President was not correct and not factually
substantiated, the very same proclamation can immediately be revoked by
Congress even on the following day. That was the reason the members of the
Committee agreed to that immediate response, reflexive action of the
President
if the situation is really that serious because the Congress may not yet be in
a position to convene and concur in the act of the President. But if they
find out that the President was wrong right on the following day, the very
same proclamation or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus
can be revoked by Congress.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
We are now in the process of voting. I was wondering why a Member of the
Committee stood up for alleged justification of the Committees action. Is this
warranted under our Rules, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: We allowed Commissioner Quesada to explain her vote
which really should come in the case of nominal voting. So, we also
recognized
Commissioner Regalado to answer the same.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, we respectfully submit that explanation of

ones vote as part of the voting process, but explanation of the Committees
actions is not part of the voting process. That is why I am submitting this
parliamentary inquiry because it could serve as a bad precedent in the
future,
Madam President.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, for the benefit of the Commissioners
because a lot of Commissioners have approached me making inquiries, and
for other
persons who may be interested, may I just announce that if we do finish the
Article on Social Justice today, the next Article we shall discuss will be
Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on the local governments. Hence, all other
reports will have to be moved back, particularly, the Declaration of
Principles,
National Economy and Human Resources. The proposed Article on Family
Rights will be discussed together with the Article on Human Resources, which
was
scheduled to be considered on August 14 and 15. But because of the delay in
the deliberation of the Article on Social Justice, we may have to move this
backwards. That is all, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we return first to the statement of Commissioner
Suarez? The Chair has explained that Commissioner Regalado was
recognized to make his
own statement but we will take note of the statements made by
Commissioner Suarez on this point.
Madam President, the Chairman of the Committee on Social Justice has
informed the Floor Leader that she and her Committee are ready to present
to the body
the proposed amendments that the Committee has accepted and to defend
its amendments.
May I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized?

MR. RODRIGO: The copies of the proposed amendments were distributed
only about half an hour ago. After that, we discussed the matter of the
executive
department and legislative department. So, we have had no time to read as
yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Gentleman need time?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I would like to ask for at least 10 minutes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask for a suspension of the session?
It was 10:57 a.m.
May I ask everybody in the galleries to please observe silence during our
proceedings? May we ask the honor able Chairman and members of the
Committee on
Social Justice to please occupy the front tables?
MR. MONSOD: In view of some remarks that have been made today and on
other days, I would like to request permission to explain my vote in the case
of the
Article on the Executive.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod may proceed.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote on the
Article on the Executive with particular reference to an amendment of which
I was
principal author, regarding the right of the President to declare martial law
for a maximum period of 60 days which can be revoked by Congress at any
time
and which is subject to review by the judiciary at any time.
There have been suggestions that those who voted for that amendment are
victims of subjugated consciousness or cannot learn from the past, or even
suffer
from a lack of awareness of the peoples sentiments.
Madam President, to be free means having the confidence to fight a dictator.
It also means the capacity to allow freedom to defend itself against actual
invasion or rebellion. The delicate balance we seek is not clear-cut But we
cannot define it either in terms of black or white. Mr. Marcos relied on the
Constitution to keep power. The premise of a dictator who is ready to
disregard the Constitution would mean that no amount of safeguard can
prevent him to
make a naked assumption of power outside the Constitution. If one reads the
totality of the Article we approved, the color of constitutionality that Mr.
Marcos used to his advantage is no longer there. That is the difference
between the 1935 and the 1986 Constitutions.
Any insinuation of subjugated consciousness, lack of patriotism,
irresponsiveness of so-called people sentiment is an offensive generalization
to those
whose records will show that they did not allow themselves to be cowed
even at the height of Mr. Marcos power at the risk of their lives and
livelihood.
I find self-righteousness offensive particularly from those who want to make
sweeping conclusions on the basis of one issue and not on the totality of
ones conviction and ones record.
Patriotism is not the sudden and frenzied outburst of emotion but the
tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
MR. OPLE: I also wish to exercise the right of reply as one of those who voted
with the majority. May I take one minute to do this, Madam President?
I think it is important, in the interest of justice and equity, to put into the
Record of this Commission that in voting for the Article on the Executive,
as amended, those who did so did not infringe any standard of
independence, intelligence and righteousness, and that they had the right to
be accorded the
courtesy of a genuine belief in their convictions.
The amendment, first by the Committee and later on by the body, of the
original provision requiring the concurrence of Congress was subjected to
thoroughgoing debate and not a single aspect of it had been hidden or
concealed from the view of the entire Commission.
Madam President, there is a tendency to equate patriotism with rendering
the executive branch of the government impotent, as though by reducing
drastically
the powers of the executive, we are rendering a service to human welfare. I
think it is also important to understand that the extraordinary measures
contemplated in the Article on the Executive pertain to a practical state of
war existing in this country when national security will have become a
common
bond of patriotism of all Filipinos, especially if it is an actual invasion or an
actual rebellion, and the President may have to be given a minimum
flexibility to cope with such unprecedented threats to the survival of a
nation. I think the Commission has done so but at the same time has not, in
any
manner, shunned the task of putting these powers under a whole system of
checks and balances, including the possible revocation at any time of a
proclamation of martial law by the Congress, and in any case a definite
termination of these extraordinary powers, subject only to another extension
to be
determined by Congress in the event that it is necessary to do so because
the emergency persists.
So, I think this Article on the Executive for which I voted is completely
responsible; it is attuned to the freedom and the rights of the citizenry. It
does not render the presidency impotent and, at the same time, it allows for
a vigorous representation of the people through their Congress when an
emergency measure is in force and effect.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we now proceed to the period of
amendments on the Article on Social Justice.
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that the Committee Chairman, Commissioner Teresa
Nieva, be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman, Commissioner Nieva, is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, yesterday the Committee met up to almost
nine oclock in the evening to synthesize and incorporate all the various
amendments
that were proposed the whole day of yesterday and Saturday. So, we have
distributed copies of the proposed amendments to the Article on Social
Justice.
Unfortunately, there were a few mistakes on pages 3 and 4, so corrected
copies will be distributed. Minor corrections on the other pages will be made
as we
go along.
Section 1 rephrases the original Section 1. We have removed the words
inequitably redistribute wealth and replaced these with DIFFUSING
WEALTH. This was
in response to the probable misunderstanding of the word redistribute that
was raised by several of those who had proposed their amendments.
MR. ROMULO: If the Commissioner is discussing Section 1, that is my
amendment. So, Madam President, may I be recognized.
MR. ROMULO: After discussing with my cosponsors, Commissioners Azcuna
and Davide, we believe that the introduction of the phrase primary
imperative makes
the phrase give highest priority redundant. We are, therefore, asking that
the phrase be deleted so that the section will now read: THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AS A PRIMARY IMPERATIVE IN ALL PHASES OF
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL ENACT
MEASURES THAT PROTECT AND
ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO HUMAN DIGNITY, REDUCE
SOCIAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUITIES, AND EQUITABLY
DIFFUSE WEALTH AND POLITICAL

POWER FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, but the Bernas amendment says: CONGRESS SHALL GIVE
HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF MEASURES.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but we are suggesting its deletion after second thought
because it seems redundant in the face of the term primary imperative.
MS. NIEVA: So now, that will be out.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted by the Committee?
FR. BERNAS: The phrase primary imperative was not in the original.
MR. ROMULO: That is correct.
FR. BERNAS: So, it is correct that giving highest priority gives a certain
amount of redundancy to the phrase. I hesitate to take it away because I
think
the matter is so important that we can afford to be redundant.
MS. NIEVA: So, what is now the final decision?
MR. ROMULO: Can we depend on the Record as indicating that primary
imperative includes the command to the legislature to give this the highest
priority?
FR. BERNAS: Provided that that is understood in the Record. I just want to
make that very clear because I think it is very important. As I said, we can
afford to be redundant.
MR. SUAREZ: So, how will we treat this now?
MR. ROMULO: With the agreement of Commissioner Bernas and my
explanation thereto, Section 1 shall read: THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE
SOCIAL JUSTICE AS A PRIMARY
IMPERATIVE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT
THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL ENACT MEASURES THAT PROTECT AND
ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO
HUMAN DIGNITY, REDUCE SOCIAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
INEQUITIES, AND EQUITABLY DIFFUSE WEALTH AND POLITICAL POWER FOR
THE COMMON GOOD.
MS. NIEVA: Commissioner Garcia would like to make some remarks.
MR. GARCIA: I believe that we can retain the same sense and at the same
time underscore the urgency that Congress must take urgent action by,
perhaps,
paraphrasing it in this manner: THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE
AS AN IMPERATIVE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT
THEREOF,
CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF
MEASURES. In other words, we retain the phrase on Congress giving highest
priority to the
enactment of social justice measures because I do not think the word
imperative needs an adjective.
MR. ROMULO: I have tried to save some words but I will leave it up to the
Committee.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, concerning this subject of the word
imperative, I want to take counsel with the Committee and other experts in
the English
language whether one can say imperative without the qualification of a
territorial imperative, a moral imperative or a political imperative. The word
imperative will have to be given a context before it can stand alone. Will
the proponent consider the qualification of MORAL IMPERATIVE?
MR. ROMULO: That is the phrase of Commissioner Azcuna, so I would rather
that he reply.
MR. OPLE: I suggest A MORAL or AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE, because the basis
for this IMPERATIVE, if it is a MORAL IMPERATIVE or AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE,
is also
political, according to the Aristotelian definition of politics. But I doubt if the
word imperative in good English usage can stand alone.
MS. NIEVA: The original read: social, economic, political and moral
imperative, but we said that was redundant.
MR. OPLE: Can we just settle with MORAL because moral in the Aristotelian
sense is also ethics and politics?
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that? In the deliberations of the Committee, I
pointed out specifically in this particular section that it is primarily a moral
imperative, in the sense that historically the national development has
worried itself with issues of growth and development and equity without
considering
the moral imperative of development in favor of the underprivileged. This is
why in the original statements we did include moral as the underscoring
adjective for imperative. I suggest that we retain that.
MR. OPLE: Yes, once again put the Bible and the Quran behind it.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that is right. That one makes a decision in favor of the
poor moral.
MR. OPLE: Social justice is also advancing social morality.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that is right.
MR. MONSOD: May we hear from Commissioner Azcuna.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, my only difficulty with that is we will be
delving into the grounds of legal enforcement of morals here and, offhand, I
would
like to emphasize that social justice is not merely a moral command or a
command of natural law unenforceable in the legal field. What is legally
enforceable is a requirement of the legal system, not merely of moral
theology.
If we say, shall promote social justice as a moral imperative, it might be
construed merely as a dictate addressed to the conscience rather than a
legally enforceable and demandable claim. It would be all right if we say,
social, political, economic and moral, but not moral alone.
I am searching for a word that would embrace all. Originally, I put national
imperative it was an imperative for the nation which is based on social,
economic, political and cultural ideals. It is moral as well, but not merely
moral, because it might be objected to as merely a moral ideal, and not
enforceable in the realm of law.
MR. OPLE: Is Commissioner Azcuna asking for a moment to reflect upon this
so that we will find the right word?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: My point is that imperative without being moral, territorial or
political would be a clumsy word in this all-important section, unless it is
modified in some way or given a context.
MR. ROMULO: With due respect, the dilemma can be removed if we delete
the phrase primary imperative and go back to Fr. Bernas amendment of
giving
highest priority. That was my original phrasing.
THE PRESIDENT: That also occurred to the Chair. So, the section shall read:
THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT.
IN PURSUIT THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY . . .
MR. OPLE: That will be acceptable to me, speaking for myself alone, Madam
President.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we are still discussing this among the
members.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I would like to retain but I will leave it to the
Committee.
MR. RAMA: While they are still discussing and reflecting on this words we
would like to Proceed. I ask that Commissioner Bernas, who has an
agreement to
Section 1, be recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Before I give my amendment I would say that I support the
proposal of Commissioner Garcia by just removing primary and leaving
imperative
standing alone. I would disagree that imperative cannot stand alone in the
English language, but I leave that to other authorities to judge.
MR. MONSOD: The Committee is prepared to accept this wording: THE
STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT
THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT
OF MEASURES . . . The first statement would be a general statement, and
urgency is given in
the enactment of measures.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all right, Commissioner Romulo?
MR. ROMULO: I would accept that.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the other proposed amendment of Commissioner
Bernas?
FR. BERNAS: My proposed amendment comes after line 5 of Section 1 which
says: reduce social, cultural, economic and political inequities. My
proposed
amendment involves both a transposition and an addition. First of all,
transpose cultural then add ERADICATE so that the phrase will read:
reduce
social, economic and political INEQUALITIES, ERADICATE cultural inequities,
and so on.
Let me explain why I prefer the use of the word inequality. When I use the
word inequality, there is no necessary moral judgment involved in that. It
is merely a description of what obtains in the national that there are gross
social, economic and political inequalities. Implicitly these inequalities,
although not morally wrong by themselves, can lead to various evils. Then I
say cultural inequities because the problem of culture is not so much of an
inequality in culture. We do not want to equalize all cultures. We do not want
to level all Filipinos to the same culture, but rather we want to protect
the various cultures against inequities. So, the phrase now will read: reduce
social, economic and political INEQUALITIES, ERADICATE cultural inequities,
and equitably diffuse wealth and political power for the common good.
MS. NIEVA: I think the Committee accepts.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Bernas accept an amendment to his
amendment by substituting the word reduce with the word ERADICATE?
FR. BERNAS: I think the Commissioner is asking the State to try to attain the
unattainable goal.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, no, that is not the point. We know that ERADICATE
may not be attainable in the immediate near future, but we are speaking
here of
goals. When we say, for example, that graft and corruption is unattainable,
do we say that we should reduce graft and corruption simply because we
know
that people being what they are will always remain grafters and corrupt? We
say we eradicate graft and corruption. We do not say reduce graft and
corruption because when we say reduce, we are practically admitting in
our subconscious that we shall tolerate inequities no matter how.
FR. BERNAS: That is why I have changed the word inequities to
INEQUALITIES. We eradicate graft and corruption because graft and
corruption is evil. But
inequality by itself is not evil. Perhaps the Commissioner could say: reduce
social, economic and political INEQUALITIES, ERADICATE cultural INEQUITIES
because inequities are evil.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I will accept that amendment inasmuch as the
Gentleman has changed the word inequities to INEQUALITIES.
MS. NIEVA: So, how will the amendment now read?
FR. BERNAS: Reduce social, economic and political INEQUALITIES,
ERADICATE cultural INEQUITIES and equitably diffuse wealth . . .
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we have a little problem with the word
eradicate because we are not trying to eradicate termites or rats. So, can
we use
another word?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I suggest ELIMINATE.
MR. MONSOD: It is acceptable.
THE PRESIDENT: Without prejudice to looking for a better word.
MR. ROMULO: I thought we had voted down capital punishment. Now we will
eliminate.
MR. MONSOD: We have a problem with the word eliminate or eradicate in
absolute terms. We prefer to use the word REDUCE. But if the proponent
insists,
we would like to present it to the body.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I would like to put it to a vote. MINIMIZE is also
REDUCE.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President. As far as inequities are concerned,

these are wrong; these are evil. So, we try to ask the State not just to reduce
them, but where possible, remove them. Perhaps we can use the word
REMOVE.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, REMOVE seems much more acceptable.
MR. DE LOS REYES: It carries the same sense as my intention. I agree with
the use of the word REMOVE.
MS. NIEVA: So, if the Committee accepts that, we shall accept the use of the
word REMOVE.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee accepts the word
REMOVE.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am in favor of the present language:
reduce social, economic, political and cultural inequities.
I do not seem to fully realize, although Commissioner Bernas says so, that
one is not necessarily evil and the other is evil. The word inequities, I
think, is broad enough but to some, these might be inequalities. By
insisting on the word inequalities, as distinguished from inequities, we
may be
leading to the utopia of equality. And it is not humanly possible to equalize.
The other point is that I was in favor of MORAL IMPERATIVE and this will be
the moving factor for Congress to enact legal measures. The observation of
Commissioner Azcuna is that if MORAL is inserted, it may not lead to legal
rights. Precisely, the word IMPERATIVE is used which would justify and
impel
Congress to enact measures. So that will give legal rights after the
enactment of Congress.
I would also object to the word HIGHEST to qualify priority because while
social justice is very important, we cannot compel the next or future
Congress to give it the first or the highest priority because in my belief,
social justice can be best achieved by more productivity, by economic
advancement. And, social justice may result from an improvement of our
economic situation, that would lead to the social well-being of all the people.
But
why should this Commission of 48 Members now dare or even say: control
the legislative discretion of Congress in the future years, when conditions
may
affect not only the economic situation, the national development program,
but likewise, the resultant effect of an improved economy? My idea, Madam
President, is that we cannot realize social justice unless we really improve

our job opportunities.
MS. NIEVA: May we get the Commissioners amendments one by one so that
we can put these to a vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Padilla proposing an amendment or just
making some comments?
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, may I speak for the Committee in this
case? I remember Commissioner Bernas explaining quite clearly that
HIGHEST does not
mean number one, but among the first.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, that is why we are asking now if there is a specific
amendment which we can vote on so that we can submit this to a vote.
MR. PADILLA: My amendment is, instead of the word primary, just say
imperative.
MS. NIEVA: We have the phrase as a primary imperative removed.
MR. PADILLA: Has that been removed?
MS. NIEVA: We have removed that entirely.
MR. PADILLA: Then, eliminate the word HIGHEST.
MS. NIEVA: May we vote on whether we should retain Congress shall give
highest priority or just Congress shall give priority to the enactment of
measures?
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I just say a word?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized .
FR. BERNAS: I would like to emphasize the fact that the language says give
highest priority. It does not say give the highest priority, but rather, it
means give very high priority, not necessarily the highest but very high
priority.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is before us now is the Romulo amendment which
has been accepted by the Committee.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, it has been accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: With the deletion of the words as a primary imperative

and preserving the phrase give highest priority.
THE PRESIDENT: So, for the record, this is a joint amendment of
Commissioners Romulo, Bernas, Davide, Nolledo, Azcuna, Rosario Braid and
de los Reyes.
Those who will vote for the use of the word HIGHEST would be giving a
negative vote to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla which
seeks to
eliminate the word HIGHEST.
Those in favor of Section 1 as already worded now, please raise their hand.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, it seems that the body is not clear as to what
we are voting on.
THE PRESIDENT: We are voting on Section 1, and this has been read by the
Chairman.
MS. NIEVA: Shall we repeat it? This is now Section 1 as approved by the
Committee: THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF
NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST
PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF MEASURES THAT PROTECT AND ENHANCE
THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO
HUMAN DIGNITY, REDUCE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUALITIES,
REMOVE CULTURAL INEQUITIES, AND EQUITABLY DIFFUSE WEALTH AND
POLITICAL POWER FOR THE
COMMON GOOD.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, if I like to vote for the whole of Section 1
except the word HIGHEST, how shall I vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will vote no.
MR. RODRIGO: That is the object of my parliamentary inquiry, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment of Commissioner Padilla should be voted

upon, first, according to the Rules. But I believe that we should first vote on
the
whole, as accepted by the Committee. And then, afterwards, if Commissioner
Padilla insists on the elimination of the word HIGHEST, then we shall vote
on
whether or not the word HIGHEST should be eliminated as already
approved by the Committee.
MR. RODRIGO: I am glad because I also have a particular amendment to this
whole section. So, we are now voting on the Romulo amendment without
prejudice to
other amendments to that section.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us put it that way.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I recommend or suggest a simplification; of the voting?
Let us first vote on whether or not we shall put the word HIGHEST. Then,
we
can vote on the whole section.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but we do not know if the body will even approve the
whole section, as worded. So, let us vote first, in principle, on Section 1, as
worded now. Afterwards, other changes in the wordings can come in.
As many as are in favor of Section 1 as read by the honorable Chairman of
the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
hand )
approved.
Let us now take up the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla to
eliminate the word HIGHEST on line 3.
Those in favor of deleting the word HIGHEST on line 3 of Section 1, please

raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
is lost.
What is the pleasure of Commissioner Rodrigo? Does he have a proposed
amendment?
Before propounding my amendment, may I ask some questions of the
Committee on the use of the word citizen in the phrase and enhance the
right of every
citizen in Section 1. It seems that the benefits of this section are reserved
for Filipino citizens. I would like to state that in both the 1973 and 1935
Constitutions, the benefits of similar provisions are not limited to Filipino
citizens. Article II, Section 6 of the 1973 Constitution reads:
The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and
security of all the people.
Article II, Section 7 of the 1973 Constitution reads:
The State shall establish, maintain, and ensure adequate social services in
the field of education, health, housing, employment, welfare, and social
security to guarantee the enjoyment by the people of a decent standard of
living.
In the 1935 Constitution, Article II, Section 5 reads:
The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic
security of all the people should be the concern of the State.
Now my question is: Do we want to limit the benefits of social justice to just
Filipino citizens, to the exclusion of other persons or noncitizens who
might be residing in the Philippines?
MS. NIEVA: I think our primary concern is really the Filipino people.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this is a change from the concept of similar provisions in
the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
MS. NIEVA: We do not mean to prejudice anybody here; we just wanted to

focus on the Filipino peoples rights to social justice.
MR. RODRIGO: Will the Committee accept an amendment that instead of
every citizen we say: enactment of measures that protect and enhance
the right of
THE PEOPLE to human dignity . . .?
MS. NIEVA: Would the Gentleman accept THE FILIPINO PEOPLE? The
suggestion was made here.
MR. RODRIGO: But that would amount to the same thing, that we are limiting
this only to Filipino citizens.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, the Committee accepts.
MR. RODRIGO: So, my amendment would be, instead of every citizen,
insert THE PEOPLE.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, will the distinguished sponsor of this
amendment agree to an amendment that instead of saying of THE PEOPLE,
we say ALL THE
PEOPLE because those are the words in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions?
MR. RODRIGO: I have no objection to that if the Committee would accept it.
MS. NIEVA: Would EVERY PERSON mean the same thing as ALL THE
PEOPLE?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I think so.
MS. NIEVA: So, perhaps, EVERY PERSON reads much better.
MR. RODRIGO: But that would be a departure from the wordings of the 1935
and 1973 Constitutions. And when a provision has been in existence for so
many
years, for decades, the words already assume a meaning, especially in
jurisprudence.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, as far as I understand, we have retained that
exact paragraph on social justice in the Declaration of Principles. So, here,
we
simply amplify, make more specific the rights given to the citizens, especially
the poor sectors of society.
MR. RODRIGO: The situation now is, my proposed amendment to use THE
PEOPLE is now sought to be amended by Commissioner Padilla by adding
ALL. My proposed
amendment has already been accepted. I have no objection to adding ALL,
if the Committee would accept it.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
MR. PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Forgive me, but I am a little bit uneasy about the word
reduce, considering the statement of Commissioner de los Reyes.
THE PRESIDENT: May we first vote on the phrase ALL THE PEOPLE?
Is there any objection to use the phrase ALL THE PEOPLE instead of every
citizen, which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair
hears
MR. MAAMBONG: As I was saying, Madam President, I am a little bit uneasy
about the word reduce, considering the statement of Commissioner de los
Reyes. I
think when we use the word reduce, we are actually saying that we are
only trying to minimize the social, economic and political inequalities. And
since
we are setting goals. it is a very sad commentary on the goals we are
setting. I was thinking if we could probably use the word PREVENT because if
we just
say reduce, we are just minimizing inequalities. What goal are we setting
anyway?
MS. NIEVA: I think the Committee does not accept the use of the word
PREVENT which refers to the future. We are referring to present existing
inequalities. So, may we put that to a vote if the Gentleman insists on such a
word.
MR. MAAMBONG: We do not have to, Madam President. I am just pointing out
that when we are trying to set goals, we should at least go all the way. But to
say reduce, we only minimize we are actually admitting that we cannot
do anything about it and we are up to that extent only.
But I leave that to the Committee; I will not press for a vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, may I respond to that?
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Madam President.
As already emphasized by Commissioner Bernas, there is nothing inherently
immoral or wrong in inequalities as has been repeated many times by
Commissioner
Padilla. In this world, there are inequalities because people have different
talents and different efforts; some people are more industrious than others;
some people are more interested in specific efforts. So, let us, for the record,
state that there is nothing inherently immoral about inequalities.
And for the sake of logical substance, I find the last phrase redundant if we
are going to adopt the following. Bernas amendment which I accept: reduce
social, economic and political INEQUALITIES. If we have that, I find the last
phrase equitably diffusing wealth AND POLITICAL POWER redundant
because
there is no way that we can reduce social, economic and political inequalities
without diffusing wealth and political power equitably. So, just for the
sake of brevity, although Commissioner Bernas has already said this, we can
be redundant when we want to emphasize, but I do not see how we can
reduce
economic, political and social inequalities without equitably diffusing wealth
and political power.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, may I speak not as a member of the
Committee, but may I respond to that. Though it is true that there is nothing
morally
wrong about inequalities as such, there is something morally wrong about
great inequalities. That is why it is imperative to reduce inequalities. So, it
will not simply be correct to say that there is nothing wrong about
inequalities, if by that the Gentleman means even great economic
inequalities.
MR. BENGZON: May we request Commissioner Bernas to respond to the

comments of Commissioner Villegas as to that redundant phrase?
FR. BERNAS: I have just conferred with Commissioner Villegas and he will
probably join me in an amendment by recasting the final phrase, so that
instead of
saying and equitably diffuse, say BY EQUITABLY DIFFUSING.
MR. BENGZON: What does Commissioner Villegas say?
MR. VILLEGAS: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Committee accepts the amendment of
Commissioners Bernas and Villegas.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this last proposed amendment
the
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: As a consequence of the amendment of Commissioners Bernas
and Villegas, I propose to delete the comma (,) between the words
inequities and
and.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we accept.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may we now read the entire Section I, as
amended, thus far: THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL
PHASES OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST
PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF MEASURES THAT PROTECT AND ENHANCE
THE RIGHT OF ALL THE PEOPLE TO
HUMAN DIGNITY, REDUCE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUALITIES
AND REMOVE CULTURAL INEQUITIES BY EQUITABLY DIFFUSING WEALTH AND
POLITICAL POWER FOR THE
COMMON GOOD.
Do we have any other amendments on Section 1?

MR. TINGSON: Commissioner Rosales and I feel that some may vote against
this section simply because of the word HIGHEST. In the light of the
explanation
of Commissioner Bernas, and the fact that there are other provisos in our
Constitution which have the same category of priority, Commissioner Rosales
and I
were wondering if we could not change the word HIGHEST to just HIGH, so
that the statement will read CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGH PRIORITY.
Probably by
changing that we could be unanimous in voting for such a very important
section as Section 1.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we raise a point of order because Section 1
has been voted upon already.
MR. TINGSON: I see. I am sorry.
MR. BENGZON: Besides, the amendment of Commissioner Padilla removing
the word HIGHEST has also been voted upon.
MR. TINGSON: I submit.
recognized
MR. DAVIDE: If there are no more amendments to Section 1, I would like to
propose amendments to Section 2. I propose to delete the words section
and the
figure 2 and the period (.) after it. And then, instead of increments, I
propose to restore the word fruits and to delete the word thereof. So
this part will no longer read as a section but will immediately follow the first
paragraph of Section 1: Towards these ends, the State shall regulate the
acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its FRUITS, and
promote . . .
I recommend that it should not be a separate section because this is
irretrievably linked with the first paragraph of Section 1.
MR. BENGZON: So, apart from the fact that the Gentleman wants to make
this part of Section 1, he also desires to remove the words increments
thereof and
retain the word fruits.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Is there any other amendment the Gentleman would like to
propose?
MR. DAVIDE: Of course, as a consequence, the word AND must be inserted
before promote.
MR. BENGZON: Yes. With respect to the Gentlemans desire to remove the
word increment, may I suggest that he get together with Commissioner
Sarmiento
because this is his amendment which we accepted yesterday.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I just make a brief comment.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I explain why I suggested the word increments. I
checked the meaning of increment and the word covers fruits, profit and
gains. So
to have a term that would cover fruits, gains and profits, I suggested the
word increments as an all-embracing term.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, in effect we will be restoring the original concept
of social justice as provided in the 1973 Constitution which includes the
right of the State to regulate acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment,
disposition of property, its fruits, as well as profits therefrom.
MS. NIEVA: That is the way we understand this.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is the understanding, then I would have no objection to
retaining the word increments. So, my proposals will be three: Delete
Section
2, make the provision as the second paragraph to Section 1; delete the word
thereof after increments; then add the word AND before promote.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.
MR. COLAYCO: Will Commissioner Davide accept an additional amendment? I
am not too comfortable with the phrase Towards these ends. I would
propose the
collective phrase TO THIS END.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be singular?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, but I am leaving it to the Committee.
MR. DAVIDE: The ends are enumerated in the first paragraph. I think this is
the sense of the Committee.
MS. NIEVA: Perhaps we can leave this to the Committee on Style.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Davide consider another amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to hear it.
MR. ROMULO: The amendment is to delete the phrase promote the
establishment of independent and self-reliant socio-political and economic
structures,
because I think that is a redundant phrase. That is part of the States
program or measures to regulate ownership, and this should be left to
Congress to
decide.
MR. DAVIDE: I am willing to agree, with the understanding that Sections 19
and 20 be approved by the body because if we approve Sections 19 and 20, I
really would agree with the Commissioner that the phrase promote the
establishment of independent and self-reliant socio-political and economic
structures is a redundancy.
MR. ROMULO: I agree, subject to that reservation.
MR. DAVIDE: Then I would agree.
THE PRESIDENT: How then will this second paragraph read with the
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, it will now read as follows: TOWARDS THESE
ENDS, THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP, USE,
AND DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY AND ITS INCREMENTS.

MR. PADILLA: Will the distinguished sponsor consider an amendment to his
amendment? If this is a part of Section 1, would not the words Towards
these
ends be unnecessary or redundant because Section 1 says in pursuit
thereof? And then, should not the words the State be the Congress
because in
Section 1 we say Congress shall give the highest priority?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, these are the original words of the
Committee. I would like to understand that the sense here is that the phrase
Towards
these ends refers to the ends or objectives enumerated in the first
paragraph, and that is why it is still necessary to state this. But as the
Chairman
has stated earlier, the Committee on Style may reformulate the wording, but
I do believe that these are essential statements to give proper emphasis to
the
objectives or ends enumerated in the first paragraph, and to emphasize what
the State should do to achieve said objectives.
MR. PADILLA: Does the Gentleman not agree to change the word State to
CONGRESS?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Madam President, because even in the 1973 Constitution,
that particular duty at the same time a right was given to the State because
we do
not need to repeat what Congress shall do in the first sentence or the first
paragraph.
MR. PADILLA: The first section already says the State and then it mentions
through the instrumentality of the Congress.
MR. BENGZON: The Committee has accepted the amendment proposed by
Commissioner Davide, so it now belongs to the Committee. May we react?
MR. VILLEGAS: May I just make some comments, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas desires to make some comments.
MR. VILLEGAS: This is an information to the Committee in support of the

deletion of the last phrase. The very first section of the Article on the
National
Economy and Patrimony says that: The State shall promote a self-reliant
and independent national economy. That means that all the structures shall
be
independent and self-reliant.
MR. BENGZON: May we request Commissioner Davide to read the entire
paragraph.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, it will now read as follows: TOWARDS THESE
ENDS, THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP, USE,
AND DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY AND ITS INCREMENTS.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee is divided as to whether we should remove the
last two lines which say: promote the establishment of independent and
self-reliant
socio-political and economic structures. We would, therefore, put the matter
to a vote.
MR. DAVIDE: With the explanation that the deletion is due to the fact that, as
stated by Commissioner Villegas, there is an almost similar and perhaps
broader provision in the proposed Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony and we also have Sections 19 and 20 in this very same proposed
Article on
Social Justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, before we vote may I say something?
MR. BENNAGEN: During the deliberations on the Article on Social Justice the
other day, I mentioned that there are two major actors in the attainment of
social justice. On the one hand, we have the State and on the other, the
people. We thought that to include this concept, these two lines should be
included in Section 1 which is really the statement of principle that
encompasses all those specific provisions that follow all the way from Section
3 in
the amended version up to Section 20. We feel that this is important.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before we vote on the issue whether to include or exclude

the last three lines, may I know from the members of the Committee the
meaning of
self-reliant socio-political and economic structures? What are these sociopolitical and economic structures?
MR. GARCIA: To bring about social justice, it is not simply sufficient to try to
reduce and to try to diffuse wealth and power. It is also important to
create the structures that in themselves will enable and encourage people to
create wealth to be able to make decisions. So this is what is in a sense the
objective of this section, to create structures or political processes that will
enable people to bring about changes by themselves or through their
communal or collective efforts. The word independent here refers to the
nation the nation to be independent as much as possible, and not to be
subservient or not to be dependent on any other power, but on its efforts as
a nation.
MR. REGALADO: Since I think a number of Commissioners share my concern
on this abstract concept, will Commissioner Garcia please give us a more
concrete,
simple and specific example so that we can consider it in that light?
THE PRESIDENT: An example of a structure?
MR. REGALADO: Any structure.
MR. GARCIA: On Sections 19 and 20 where we have peoples organizations,
one of the mechanisms envisioned or suggested is a mechanism of popular
consultation. For example, whenever decisions affecting the lives of
fishermen are made, like the problem of Laguna Lake, the fishermen are
consulted, not
only in the planning but also in the implementation program. Regarding land
reform, farmers and even landowners later on are also consulted on these
questions.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, that is an institutionalized consultative
structure.
MR. GARCIA: Yes. We try to institutionalize the participation of people in
political decisions, in political processes. So that the structures in a sense
are moved by the efforts of people, together with government.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, a consultative process which is supposed to

be institutionalized for this purpose resulting in a social structure?
MR. GARCIA: It results in socio-political and economic structures. That is why
the system of initiative and referendum refers to the diffusion of political
power. The system of sectoral representation is also along these lines. The
system of cooperatives, of consultative assemblies could also be along these
lines.
MR. REGALADO: Are these not already covered by Sections 19 and 20 of the
same Article, or are they different? Are they complementary or
supplementary?
MR. BENNAGEN: May I add to the statements of Commissioner Garcia,
Madam President?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, before we vote, I would like to make just
one statement.
I would like the body to take note that if we delete the last three sentences in
Section 2, the expression or the words political power in the last line
of Section 1 will be out of place.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, may I add to the comments of
Commissioner Garcia? Commissioner Garcia has dealt lengthily on
independent political
organizations as consultative mechanisms. Let us also add the possibility of
independent economic organizations, like those belonging to small-scale
enterprises or entrepreneurs, as well as cooperatives. I think all of these are
considered and contemplated in the concept of independent and self-reliant
socio-political and economic structures. In a way, they parallel the existing
formal organizations of government. But we must, as a matter of
encouraging
the peoples initiative and peoples enterprise, include this as a
complementary effort in the attainment of social justice.
MR. DAVIDE: As the proponent who accepted that particular amendment,

may I just make a rejoinder to the statement of Commissioner Nolledo? The
effect is
not so, as stated by him, because we have clear provisions under Sections 19
and 20 which read as follows:
SECTION 19. In the pursuit of the ends of social justice, the State shall
respect the independence and the role of peoples organizations as a
principal
means of empowering the people to pursue and protect through peaceful
means their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations.
SECTION 20. The State shall respect the right of the people and their
organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social,
political and economic decision-making, and shall MAKE POSSIBLE adequate
consultation mechanisms.
So, the effect of the deletion is not that contemplated by Commissioner
Nolledo because of Sections 19 and 20.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I reply very briefly?
MR. NOLLEDO: Because of the use of the words Towards these ends, I think
the statements of Commissioner Davide are gratuitous in the sense that we
are
concentrating merely on disposition, ownership, acquisition of property,
which are very restrictive. So, Section 2 will not reflect what is contained in
Section 1. I am asking for legal craftsmanship, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: The issue has been amply debated. I move that we take a vote on
this particular issue.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide, which is
to include this as a second paragraph of Section 1, has not been accepted
because of
the division within the membership of the Committee. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, the first part of the Commissioners
amendment was to remove the words SECTION 2. The Committee accepts
the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: That is accepted.

MS. NIEVA: Do we have to vote on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will have to vote on that.
MS. NIEVA: Then we shall have a vote on the first part of the amendment.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, if we vote on that first part, does that
foreclose us from making further amendments should it be approved, or shall
we
follow the same procedure that we had where a section was first approved,
and then subjected to further refining amendments?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will follow the same procedure.
Those in favor of placing the first sentence of Section 2 as a second
paragraph of Section 1, as proposed by Commissioner Davide and which has
been
accepted by the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
approved.
Now, let us vote on the second portion of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide to delete the last two lines of the original Section 2.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I just have one sentence, Madam President, before we
vote?
MR. BENNAGEN: Since we are already condensing into one section the two
sentences. I feel that this is necessary to maintain some conceptual
symmetry in
relation to the State and the people as instruments of social justice.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the second part of the amendment of

Commissioner Davide, please raise their hand. (Several Members raise their
hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor, and 18 against; the amendment is
approved.
So we do not have any Section 2 right now.
MR. RAMA: Just one more speaker, Madam President. May I ask that
Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I would propose a new section to this Article we are now
discussing by transposing what appears to be Section 10 in the draft of the
Committee
to what will now become Section 2. Inasmuch as Section 10 deals with the
promotion of social justice which includes the commitment to create
economic
opportunities based on the freedom of initiative, especially for small- and
medium-scale entrepreneurs, I do not believe that belongs to the section
under
agrarian and land reform. It is a general section which more properly belongs
to the first part.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the Gentleman proposes to transpose.
MR. ROMULO: It is an amendment by transposition of Section 10, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: And mark it as Section 2.
MR. ROMULO: As a new section, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, when we discussed this last night, we did not
intend this section to be one under agrarian reform because we certainly
realized
that this has nothing to do with agrarian reform. So, we thought it would be a
separate section just like Agrarian Reform and Labor and this one would deal
with the entrepreneurs. We thought this would be a separate section with a
subsection entitled Entrepreneurs.
MR. ROMULO: So, this would precede Labor.
MS. NIEVA: We thought it would come after Agrarian Land Reform.

MR. ROMULO: No , that does not make sense. At the very least, it should
follow Labor.
It the Committee asks me, it should actually precede Labor. This is a
general statement.
MR. BENGZON: Would the Gentleman insist on his motion to transpose?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, because it provides balance to the first section. and that
was precisely the point of Commissioner Villegas. To place it in Section 10 or
under some heading would make it lose its whole effect.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think there are two concepts that are embodied in Section
10 one, the commitment to create economic opportunities based on the
freedom of
initiative; and two, its special attention or concern for small- and mediumscale entrepreneurs. I think the commitment to create economic
opportunities
based on the freedom of initiative applies to all, not only to small- and
medium-scale entrepreneurs. But maybe that sector of small- and mediumscale
entrepreneurs deserves a separate section which will attend to
particularities.
MR. MONSOD: There are differences within the Committee on this matter.
There are those of us who feel it should be right after Section 1 because
Section 1
talks about what the State should do. In other words, these are acts of the
State; whereas, we also need to balance these with the promotion of private
initiative. So, we are really talking about private initiative all throughout the
economy. But we are making only a special mention of small- and
medium-scale entrepreneurs and this would balance State action with
private initiative.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, one brief comment on Section 10.

MR. SARMIENTO: With due respect to the proponents, I humbly submit that
this Section 10 is not necessary because we have Section 1 which provides
that
Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that will
protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity; reduce
social, economic, political, inequalities, etc. So here, we are specifying a
particular sector. I humbly submit that Section 10 is already covered by
Section 1.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I would like to support the proposal of
Commissioner Romulo. Section 1 deals with the diffusion of wealth: Section
10 deals
with the creation of wealth. If we put the two together, we create and diffuse
wealth. So the two of them are basic principles running through this.
It was 12:45 p.m.
When we suspended the session, Commissioner Romulo had the floor.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, my amendment is to transpose Section 10. I
propose that it be made a new Section 2.
MS. NIEVA: Will it have the same wording?
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: The view of the Committee is that if we mention small- and
medium-scale entrepreneurs, specifically singling out that sector and
putting this
in the definition, it would look like we are giving singular attention and
privilege to that sector. We have discussed this in our Committee and we are
wondering if the Gentleman is agreeable to this phraseology as Section 2:
THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE COMMITMENT TO
CREATE ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON THE FREEDOM OF INITIATIVE AND THE PRINCIPLE
OF SELF-RELIANCE. Could that be Section 2?
MR. ROMULO: May I just consult my cosponsor, Commissioner Villegas, if that
is acceptable.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with due respect to Commissioner
Romulo, I have a prejudicial motion before we suspended the session this
morning. I moved
for the deletion of this section on the ground that the provisions of Section 1,
particularly the words give highest priority to the enactment of measures
that protect and enhance the right of every citizen to human dignity, would
cover that of Section 10. And secondly, my argument was that here we are
giving importance to one sector.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that is why the amendment is to eliminate
the phrase especially through small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs.
Precisely, we
want to get away from the idea that they are a privileged sector when they
were mentioned in the general statement. But we want to focus on the need
for
freedom of initiative and principle of self-reliance to counterbalance the
mandate for State action.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I request the reformulation of Section 10, as amended
by the Committee itself.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. This was the way we formulated it: THE PROMOTION OF
SOCIAL JUSTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE COMMITMENT TO CREATE ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON
THE FREEDOM OF INITIATIVE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-RELIANCE.
Basically, the first part is entirely the Villegas amendment but we felt that it
was
important to include the principle of self-reliance because we wanted to
stress that social justice is not only the States responsibility but the
citizens also.
MR. SARMIENTO: Then, with that explanation and amendment by deletion, I
MS. NIEVA: Thank you, Madam President.

MR. ROMULO: I accept the Committees amendment.
MR. BENNAGEN: Also, may I add another comment. It also restores what was,
in effect, lost in the deletion of the three sentences, essentially the principle
of self-reliance because, as was explained earlier this morning, we feel that
we should not simply mandate the State to do everything for the people,
including the so-called private sector but should encourage also the other
side, which is to say, the nongovernmental organizations.
MR. ROMULO: So, Madam President, with the amendment now of the
Committee, the provision shall read: THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
SHALL INCLUDE THE
COMMITMENT TO CREATE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON THE
FREEDOM OF INITIATIVE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-RELIANCE.
THE PRESIDENT: And this will be Section 2?
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Romulo, which has been accepted by the Committee, to
transpose Section 2
with the wordings that have been recited by Commissioner Romulo and the
Chairman of the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment
is
approved.
MR. RAMA: To amend Section 3, Madam President, I ask that Commissioner
Foz be recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, my proposed amendment has to do with Section
3(b) under the title of Labor. But, first of all, I would like to ask the Chairman
if it is true that the phrase of any class or kind has been deleted.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, the phrase has been deleted. We would like to confirm
that.
MS. NIEVA: It was a mistake to insert that. So, in the corrected pages that we
gave, that was deleted.
MR. FOZ: The amendment would consist of the following: Insert the words
INCLUDING THOSE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR between the words workers and
to, so that
the clause will now read: Guarantee the rights of workers INCLUDING THOSE
IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR to self-organization.
That is only in consonance with the response of the Committee to a previous
interpellation on the scope of the term workers. The Committee said that it
would include those in the public, as well as private, sector. So, to clarify, to
put emphasis and to stress that these rights shall also pertain to those
in the public sector, the amendment would include that phrase INCLUDING
THOSE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
MR. DAVIDE: This proposed Section 3 was taken from my proposed
amendment and I would like o state that the intention of Commissioner Foz is
already
included in the words of any class or kind.
MR. FOZ: But it has been removed.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee would like to react.
We deleted the phrase of any class or kind on lines 20 and 21 of the draft
because we would like to avoid any formulation that would constitutionalize
a
distinction. And if we put that in the insertion being proposed by
Commissioner Foz, it might unjustly and without proper basis lay the basis
for a
distinction, which precisely we want to avoid.
MR. DAVIDE: If this particular phrase has been deleted earlier, I would
conform to the deletion, but would object to the proposal of Commissioner
Foz.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee is of the same position, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: I cannot see why there should be any objection to the inclusion of
such phrase, since the Committee itself responded before to a question that
the
term workers would include both workers in the public, as well as private,
sector.
MS. AQUINO: Are we in agreement with Commissioner Foz that the term
workers contemplates all classes and kinds of employees and laborers? We
are confused
about his intention in inserting a particular reference, an expressed reference
to the public sector. In other words, we think it is an unnecessary
surplusage.
MR. FOZ: In the first place, why was the phrase of any class or kind
dropped from the provision, if it was ever proposed at all?
MS. AQUINO: Precisely because we do not want to distinguish anymore.
Essentially, our reference to workers here refers to any class or kind, and we
are of
the feeling that if we explicitly provide for that, we just might unnecessarily
open the interpretation to some unwanted distinction.
Madam President, we would like to submit this to the floor for decision.
MR. FOZ: In view of the explanation, Madam President, I am willing to
withdraw the amendment, but I have other amendments concerning the
same provision if
the Committee will just allow me to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on the same section?
MR. FOZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: May I propound some questions to the members of the
Committee?
MR. RODRIGO: I was about to propound a question to Commissioner Foz
regarding the phrase that he wants to insert. The response by the members
of the
Committee seems to imply that that is not necessary because this paragraph
already includes those in the public sector. Do I get it right?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, that is right.
MR. ROMULO: These rights guaranteed by this paragraph include the right to
strike in accordance with law. So, even the policemen, the nurses in our
Department of Health or at the Philippine General Hospital, and maybe even
the members of the army, are included in that guarantee the right to
strike in
accordance with law.
MS. NIEVA: That is precisely why we placed that phrase in accordance with
law. We know that there are exceptions, and these include the armed forces
and
the civil defense workers that the Gentleman has mentioned. And so, these
would not have that right to strike if it is not in accordance with law.
MR. RODRIGO: So, Congress then has the power to enact a law stating that
there is that right to strike except for the members of the armed forces,
police
forces and civil service employees. Is that correct?
MR. RODRIGO: Before Congress enacts such a law, what would be the
situation?
MS. NIEVA: We understand there are existing laws that would govern that.
MR. RODRIGO: Existing laws?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, in connection with the same question of
Commissioner Rodrigo, I would like to ask a question. Does the phrase in
accordance with
law refer to all the rights enumerated in this provision, such as selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful concerted
activities
and also the right to strike? Does the phrase have reference to the listing of
the rights of workers?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President, because one will notice that there is no
comma between the words strike and in, so the phrase in accordance
with law
is limited to the phrase including the right to strike.
MR. FOZ: But does not the Committee think or believe that these rights listed
here self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful
concerted activities are merely being guaranteed but the workers have
these rights? They exist even without being mentioned here in this provision.
MR. SUAREZ: That may be true, but the Gentleman was asking whether or
not the phrase in accordance with law qualifies the other antecedent
phrases.
MR. SUAREZ: It does not. In this particular regard, it only qualifies the phrase
right to strike.
MR. FOZ: Does that mean that the law that may be passed on this matter will
have to deal only with the right to strike but not with the rights to
self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful and
concerted activities?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the thrust of this particular provision, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: Does that also mean that while Congress may regulate the right to
strike, it may not regulate activities as far as self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations and peaceful and concerted activities are
concerned?
MR. SUAREZ: I think Congress can, in an implied way. But in the case of the
right to strike, we made it quite clear that this should be done strictly in
accordance with what Congress may provide in the future. But it does not
certainly preclude Congress from enacting laws that will guarantee the rights
of
workers to, say, self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and
peaceful and concerted activities.
MR. FOZ: But we can say that these rights exist, that the workers have these
rights. And by mentioning these in this provision, we are only saying that the
State is under a mandate to guarantee these rights.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right.
MR. FOZ: I would like to proceed to the amendment, Madam President. Still
on the same section, between the words humane and conditions, insert
the
words TERMS AND. So that the phrase will now read: just and humane
TERMS AND conditions of work.
MS. NIEVA: We accept that amendment, Madam President.

MR. FOZ: And the next amendment will be, after the word work on the
same line, insert ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING PROGRAM. So that
the phrase will
read: just and humane TERMS AND conditions of work, ADEQUATE
EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING PROGRAMS . . .
Let me explain the amendment. There is a convention of the International
Labor Organization recognizing or providing that workers, in general, should
be
given adequate opportunity to have a continuing education and training not
only for their self-improvement but also to keep up with the technological
changes going on in the industry and in society.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, could I just respond to the explanation of
Commissioner Foz?
MS. QUESADA: Does not the Gentleman think that such a proposal is already
covered in the terms and conditions of work that workers or trade unions
would
negotiate with management for them to be allowed to undertake continuing
education as part of their manpower development program?
MR. FOZ: But the terms and conditions of work may not adequately
encompass the concept of a continuing education training of the workers.
There is a need,
I think, to specifically express this as a right of the workers to adequately
prepare them for their work and also to keep up with changing technologies
in
their respective areas.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we volunteer the information that in
most collective bargaining agreements, there is a specific provision calling
for
promotional and educational campaigns on the rights of the laborers. In
other words, they are even given union leaves in order to attend to labor
seminars
that are being conducted by the mother chapter organizations among the
labor unions.
MR. FOZ: That is in the case of the organized labor, and we know very well
that the organized labor constitutes but a very small fragment of the total
employed labor force. And we have in mind, as Section 3(b) itself says, that it
shall be the duty of the State to afford full protection to labor,

organized and unorganized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will Commissioner Foz entertain an amendment to his
amendment? Since this is a component that is still important not only in
terms of
organized labor but also for farmers, would the Committee be willing to
include this concept when we go to Section 19 or Section 20 where we
incorporate
the concept of human resources development and non-formal education in
the provisions on peoples organizations?
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Rosario Braid referring to Section 3(b)?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes. The amendment of Commissioner Foz is to include
ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING PROGRAMS as an additional phrase
in Section
3(b), but the Committee feels that this is a component of every collective
negotiation.
MS. NIEVA: May we know what Commissioner Foz thinks about this
MR. FOZ: As long as the concept is there, I would agree to a deferment so
that the proposed additional amendment will be taken up in connection with
Section 20.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Foz entertain a question, Madam President?
MR. ROMULO: I think he is in agreement that when there is a CBA, the CBA
will provide for what he is seeking to include. Is that correct?
MR. FOZ: Usually, yes.
MR. ROMULO: When there is no CBA, this provision would mean that it is the
duty of the State to guarantee what he is suggesting and, therefore, it will be
the State that will pay for what he is suggesting. Is that correct?
MR. FOZ: Not necessarily, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Who else will pay?

MR. FOZ: There could be a provision of law, let us say in the Labor Code, that
would provide for such opportunity for the workers to obtain education or
training at any level, general social or civic education or trade union
education.
MR. ROMULO: He will, therefore, make it mandatory on the part of every
employer to provide such a training and so on.
MR. FOZ: Generally, it is management who will have to provide for the
wherewithal of such a . . .
MR. ROMULO: I think it cannot be meant generally if we will command the
legislature to pass a law which will mandate the employer to provide these
things.
MR. FOZ: Because the improvement in the education of the workers will
redound to the benefit of management.
MR. ROMULO: There is no doubt about that, but we are talking of feasibility
and the cost of making such a thing compulsory.
MR. FOZ: One requirement would be that management would allow the
workers to study, for instance, on managements time or companys time.
That is one of
the provisions that are envisioned.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, that is precisely my point. So, it will not only cost the
company the time, but the wages of the individual.
MS AQUINO: On behalf of the Committee, this might obviate the need to vote
on the amendment of Commissioner Foz. Would it satisfy Commissioner Foz if
the
Committee gives him the assurance that from the proposed provisions in
Section 3(b), there is sufficient mandate to the Congress to give impetus to a
statutory implementation in the context of his proposal of educational
training programs? Would it satisfy him if we give him that assurance now so
that we
do not have to vote on his proposed amendment?
MR. FOZ: Without expressing it in so many words?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.

MR. FOZ: I would agree, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: In connection with Section 3(b), may I put a question to the
Committee for clarification purposes, which may not lead to an amendment
at all.
Under the existing law, there are two grounds for declaring a strike, and
these are unfair labor practice which may impinge on the . . .
MR. FOZ: Madam President, before Commissioner Ople proceeds, may I ask if
my previous amendment has been accepted by the Committee regarding the
inclusion
of the words TERMS AND?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have included that; we have accepted that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is after the word humane?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. FOZ: After the word humane and before the word conditions.
THE PRESIDENT: If that is all that we have there, then we will have to put that
to a vote. Is Commissioner Foz through already with his proposed
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: What was the desire of Commissioner Ople? Did he have a
proposed amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Foz?
MR. OPLE: No, an amendment may not be necessary if the Committee can
answer just one very simple question concerning Section 3(b), Madam
President. If I
stand in the way of a vote on the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Foz, I will resume my seat and come back later.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Gentlemans comment have something to do with
the amendment of Commissioner Foz?
MR. COLAYCO: All the paragraphs in Section 3 merely reflect the rights of
labor which are already provided in existing laws. I am afraid that we are
cluttering our Constitution unnecessarily.
Repeatedly, I have received during our public conferences and by letter
comments about the style and that the language used in framing our
Constitution is
too long. I have here before me a collection of writings and recommendations
of constitutional writers which I would like to read.
Generally, a constitution should be brief and should limit itself to
fundamentals, avoiding all legislative matter. It should affirm general
principles
leaving details to legislation.
The constitution should be as short as possible which is little more than an
enumeration of the powers of the various branches of the government to
which
is added the Bill of Rights.
There are many other comments in the same tenor. What I would like to
propose is that if the intent of the Committee is to elevate to the
constitutional
level the plethora of laws that have been enacted to date, including the
Labor Code of the Philippines, I believe that with the statements in Sections
1, 2
and even a portion of Section 3 to the effect that it shall be the duty of the
State to afford full protection to labor, we will have accomplished the
purpose of the Committee without the long paragraphs that have been
submitted to us for approval. And I believe that, without in any way
diminishing or
reducing the importance of preserving the rights of labor, we can do that by
simply making a short statement as suggested.
MS. AQUINO: On behalf of the Committee, it is our humble submission that

the rights enumerated herein, most of which are just repetitions of the
provisions
in the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions, rightfully elevate to the constitutional
level basic and fundamental rights pertaining to the workers and to the labor
force which we think are immutable and unyielding to the protestations of
brevity. These are something that are basic and which cannot be
compromised
because of briefer expediency.
MR. COLAYCO: I agree with the reasoning behind the statement. What I am
saying is, all these rights that we are now being asked to approve are already
in
our law books and it is not likely that our legislature may turn around next
time and say that all these laws are hereby annulled. What I am saying is:
What is the use of repeating what is already in our law books? If all we want
is to elevate to constitutional level the protective laws that we already
have, a general statement that we have already approved in the first and
second sections could be more than sufficient, I think. Anyway, I am
addressing
this proposal or this suggestion so that the Committee would bear in mind
the accepted norms of constitutional writing.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I be recognized?
MR. LERUM: I agree with the statement that the Constitution should be as
short as possible. But a short Constitution is liable to misinterpretation. I am
going to cite this example. In the Bill of Rights of the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions, there is a provision that the right to form associations whose
purpose is not contrary to law may not be abridged. And yet, in the Labor
Code, there is such a provision which prohibits government employees from
forming
unions; another provision which says that managerial employees and
security guards cannot form unions. And so, it becomes necessary that we
make a detailed
provision on these so that what is very clear in the Constitution will be clearly
interpreted also. This is the reason why there seems to be a repetition
of what has already been provided. That is only one example. We can cite
other examples, but I think that should be enough.
MR. COLAYCO: In our Bill of Rights which was already approved by this body,
we have in Section 7 the same provision which says:
The right of the people including those employed in the public and private
sectors to form associations, unions, or societies for purposes not contrary to
And we find the same statement in this Article.
I am suggesting that the Committee be more parsimonious in the use of
words. Frankly, this has been repeatedly mentioned during our public
hearings, and as
I said, even in private communications. Probably, some of us must have
received similar letters. I think we should take note of these suggestions.
MS. NIEVA: We appreciate those observations, Madam President, and we are
very conscious really that we should not usurp the role of the legislature
here.
MR. MONSOD: Does Commissioner Colayco have any suggestion on how we
can be less enumerative? We would be happy to receive his suggestions
because his point
is well taken.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. This occurred to me because I notice that during the
period of amendments, the provisions are getting longer. We will never end
with
this. It took us more than one hour and a half just to approve one section,
and already we are eight days behind. So, this suggestion is made not only
to
the Committee but to my colleagues. And I do not want to contribute to what
I am trying to avoid.
Thank you.
MR. FOZ: I have one last amendment in response to previous statements, but
I would like to ask the question first. Is the concept of a decent living wage
not subsumed in the concept of just and humane terms and conditions of
work?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, the Gentleman may be right. So, is he suggesting that that
be deleted?
MR. FOZ: In that case, I so move that the phrase and to a decent living
wage be deleted on the ground that it is already covered by the phrase just
and
humane TERMS AND conditions of work.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, for a parliamentary inquiry. Before going
into that next amendment by Commissioner Foz, I would like to ask: Have we
voted
already on his first amendment inserting the words TERMS AND between
humane and conditions which was accepted by the Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: Not yet.
MR. RODRIGO: So, I think we should vote on that first.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not yet voted on that; that is why we would like to
get the other amendments which may be accepted by the Committee on this
particular line. If there are more amendments then we will proceed to vote.
What is the suggestion of Commissioner Foz?
MR. FOZ: I suggest, Madam President, that we vote first on my first
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: This has been accepted by the Committee.
Is there any objection to this particular amendment?
SR. TAN: Madam President, I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this correct? Has this been accepted by the Committee?
SR. TAN: Has it been accepted by the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have accepted that.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, that has been accepted.
SR. TAN: But I would still like to object because we have been fighting for a
living wage.
MS. NIEVA: No, we are not there yet.
THE PRESIDENT: We are still on the phrase TERMS AND conditions of work.
MS. NIEVA: We are just talking about the phrase just and humane TERMS
AND conditions.
SR. TAN: I am sorry.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular proposed
amendment of Commissioner Foz which has been accepted by the
Committee?
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may I change my amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: I object.
THE PRESIDENT: To the inclusion of the word TERMS?
MR. DAVIDE: I object to the inclusion of the words TERMS AND because
these would be necessarily included in living wage, and I do not want
living
wage to be deleted later. The word conditions refers to the conditions of
labor, like a better place, a habitat for the employees. These are the
conditions referred to. We cannot speak of just and humane TERMS if we
refer to the compensation or the wage which would be taken care of by the
succeeding phrase. It could be just TERMS and humane conditions, but not
both TERMS AND conditions.
MR. FOZ: I agree, but TERMS would be a more encompassing word.
It was 3:28 p.m.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I be recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Upon the suggestion of some members of the Committee

since I am not quite ready to give my proposals at this moment. I am
reserving the right
to do so at the latest, if necessary, tomorrow morning.
MR. FOZ: Before we suspended the session, I proposed the insertion of the
words TERMS AND after the word humane and before the word
conditions, but it
appears that although the Committee at first accepted the amendment, the
Committee, I understand, has second thoughts about accepting the
amendment,
considering the opposition of Commissioner Davide.
THE PRESIDENT: So, is Commissioner Foz insisting on his amendment?
MR. FOZ: And also, in connection with that amendment, I would have
suggested the deletion of the phrase and to a decent living wage. But I
would like to
hear the comments of the Committee at this point, Madam President.
The Committee has gone over the various proposals involving this particular
provision, and the Committee has come up with a simplified version. I would
like to read this new proposal. We will delete the words just and and it will
be: humane conditions of work, and to a living wage, on the understanding
that the definition of the word wage would include total package which
would mean allowances. bonuses, fringe benefits or whatever.
So, as proposed, this particular portion will read: security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, and to a living wage, and to participation in policy .
. .
MR. FOZ: Madam President, with the understanding that the term wage
would refer not only to basic wage but to all other monetary emoluments to
be given
to the workers, I am willing to withdraw my amendment.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized?
MR. OPLE: I do recall, Madam President, that I yielded voluntarily and
graciously to Commissioners Foz and Colayco. I said I would resume my seat
so that I
would not stand in the way of the resolution of the Foz amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Ople is recognized.
I am looking at a vital clarification of Section 3(b). The intent of the
Committee, I think, is critical and, as to whether or not I would propose an
amendment later on, I would like it to conform with the contour of their own
wish and intent. There is in this paragraph the guarantee of the right of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike as may be provided by
law, for their mutual benefit, welfare or aid, security of tenure, just and
humane conditions of work, a decent living wage, and to participate in
policyand decision-making processes affecting their interests. And, of course, I
consider this a commendable paragraph, even if it may fall short of the
expectations of Commissioner Colayco as to his standards of constitutional
brevity.
But the vital question to ask and I hope the Committee will respond to this
is whether or not in the contemplation of this paragraph, mutual benefit,
welfare or aid, security of tenure, just and humane conditions of work,
decent living wage and also participation at the level of the undertaking by
the
workers constitute new grounds for declaring a strike in addition to what the
existing law provides; namely, unfair labor practice or economic deadlocks.
Is it the intention of the Committee to expand the strikeable grounds in
economic disputes by adding this new series of situations in the place of
work?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, on behalf of the Committee, there is no

intention to expand the axiom in law and jurisprudence that the right to
strike
pertains only to collective bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practice.
MS. AQUINO: Amendments might be in order to clarify that intention.
MR. OPLE: Yes. In conformity with that desire just expressed, may I ask the
Committee, therefore, to consider a minor amendment, which is more for
purposes
of syntax and clarity. Could we delete the first sentence of Section 3(b)?
Could we put a period (.) after the words mutual benefit, welfare or aid and
then begin a new sentence which will read: THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
security of tenure, just and humane conditions of work, and to a decent living
wage,
and to PARTICIPATE in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
interests.
In addition, I move to strike out the word mutual describing benefit
because I think this refers to internal benefits of the organizations of workers,
rather than to any mutuality between workers and employers.
Is this amendment acceptable to the Committee, Madam President?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. Madam President, the Committee accepts.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have this again?
MR OPLE: It will read: for their benefit, welfare or aid. THEY SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO security of tenure.
MR. LERUM: Will Commissioner Ople please restate his amendment?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the amendment consists of the deletion of the
word mutual, then put a period (.) after welfare or aid, and then start all
over again with a new sentence: THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO security of
tenure, just and humane conditions of work, and to a decent living wage, and
to
PARTICIPATE in policy and decision-making processes affecting their

interests.
MR. LERUM: Does this amendment mean that unions cannot strike even if an
employer has committed an unfair labor practice by dismissing somebody?
MR. OPLE: No, it does not follow. I think that is covered by the provisions on
unfair labor practice.
MR. LERUM: That is what I am asking.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. LERUM: It is not covered.
MR. OPLE: No.
MR. LERUM: In other words, the workers can still strike if the cause of the
strike is an act of unfair labor practice.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: In connection with my proposed amendment for which I was
recognized, but I notice now that . . .
MR. OPLE: Do I understand, Madam President, that this amendment has been
approved?
MR. REGALADO: No. That is why I intend to propose an amendment to the
amendment Commissioner Ople was for the elimination of the word mutual
from the
phrase for their mutual benefit, welfare or aid. My proposal is to eliminate
the entire phrase for the simple reason that it will necessarily refer to
the workers as its antecedent. For whom else is the aid, welfare or benefit
intended but for the workers, which is the very antecedent at the start of
Section 3 (b)? So, it will not even be necessary because it has its course
intended, that it will be for the benefit, aid and welfare of the very workers
which is the subject matter in the particular paragraph.
MR. OPLE: Yes. I think it will strengthen the first sentence if we put a period
(.) after the phrase to strike in accordance with law. All the rest is
greatly superfluous.
THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Ople accepts the proposed amendment of

MR. OPLE.: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say now?
MR. OPLE: I hope the Committee accepts it.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, put a period (.) after with law, then start a
new sentence to read: THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO security of tenure,
humane
conditions of work, living wage . . . Did we eliminate the word decent?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, living wage instead of decent is what we have accepted.
So, with that understanding, the Committee accepts the elimination of that
entire phrase for their mutual benefit, welfare or aid.
MS. NIEVA: So that the entire Section 3 (b)will read: Guarantee the rights of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO security of tenure, humane conditions of
work, and to a living wage, and to PARTICIPATE in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their interests.
MR. FOZ: In the light of the question asked by Commissioner Ople and the
response of the Committee, I would like to point out that there is nothing
here
but the basis of a conclusion that Congress cannot expand the grounds for
declaring a strike. Why are we preventing Congress from exercising its
plenary
powers? Why are we preventing Congress from stating the grounds for
declaring a strike? Why are we saying that strikes may only be declared on
grounds of
collective bargaining deadlocks on economic grounds?
MR. MONSOD: I think if we read the sentence, it thus says, including the
right to strike in accordance with law. So, Congress may provide for the
limitations.
MR. FOZ: Yes. But I heard the answer of the Committee that strikes will only
be declared on the ground of collective bargaining deadlocks on economic
grounds.
MR. OPLE: That is under the existing law, Madam President, but there is
nothing in this provision that will curtail the ability of Congress to expand the
grounds for declaring a strike.
MR. FOZ: But I heard the Committee say that that is not the intention. The
intention is not to expand the grounds for strikeable issues.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Aquino enlighten Commissioner Foz?
MS. AQUINO: Yes. There was no intention. The Committee may have been
misinterpreted by Commissioner Foz. In fact, if he will read the provision as
proposed, it grants plenary rights pertaining to the right to strike in
accordance with law. We were just referring to the action in labor law and the
jurisprudence in labor and management relations that recognize that the
right to strike pertains to deadlocks in collective bargaining agreements and
unfair labor practices. If there is anything more encompassing than that, I
could not fathom it at the moment.
MR. FOZ: Yes. But Congress, under this provision, may provide for any
strikeable issues.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I proceed with the proposed
amendment for which I was recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Was the amendment not accepted by Commissioner
Ople?
MR. REGALADO: It was amended, Madam President. But I still have a few
minor amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on the same topic, because we will have to put the
other amendment to a vote?
MR. REGALADO: Then, I can defer in the meantime.
MR. DAVIDE.: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: In fact, we have not yet voted on Section 5 (a).
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Before it is voted, may I introduce a very minor

amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Which one?
MR. DAVIDE: On the proposal which was the subject of the Ople-Regalado
amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: It is just an insertion of the word AND before peaceful.
MS. NIEVA: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been accepted.
MR. BENGZON: Before we vote, we would like to reiterate what was already
stated in the Record so it will be very clear. In this portion of Section 3 (b),
with a respect to the right to strike, that also carries with it the right to
declare a lockout.
THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair inquire from the Committee: Are we ready to
approve Section 3 (a)?
MR. LERUM: Madam President, before we vote, may I be allowed to state my
opinion on this?
My opinion is that this provision does not empower nor give any right to the
employer to declare a lockout. There is nothing in the provision which says
that the employer can declare a lockout.
MS. AQUINO: I would attempt to clarify the position of Commissioner
Bengzon.
There is no intention to elevate the employers right to declare a lockout
whenever provided by law. There is no intention to elevate it to the level of a
constitutional mandate. If the intention of Commissioner Bengzon is just to
recognize the employers right to declare a lockout in situations warranted
and
defined by law, it was just a matter of balancing interests and concerns both
for the workers and the employers.
MR. BENGZON: Can we vote now, Madam President?
MS. NIEVA: On Section 3 (a)?
MR. BENGZON: We can vote on Section 3(a) Madam President, and then after
that we can vote on Section 3 (b).
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, before we vote On Section 3 (a), I have a
minor amendment that I have discussed with some members of the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: On Section 3 (a)?
MR. SARMIENTO: My amendment is just to replace the word domestic with
the word LOCAL because the word domestic to me, Madam President, is
associated
with household help. So, some of the members of the Committee have
agreed to replace the word domestic with LOCAL.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we accept.
So, may I move, Madam President, that we vote on Section 3(a) before we
vote on Section 3(b), as amended?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to Section 3 (a), as amended?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I suppose it should be without prejudice to
the reservation made by Commissioner Colayco.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
approved.
Let us proceed to Section 3 (b), as amended.

MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I proceed with my proposed
amendment? A part of this has been taken up when I was recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, before I do so, may I ask the Committee
just what is meant by that last phrase which reads: participation in policy
and
decision-making processes affecting their interests? I am particularly
concerned with the situation where the employer is a corporation, and policyand
decision-making processes are, of course, handled by a board of directors.
Does it mean to say that the employees must also have a seat in the board
of
directors so that they can participate, or is there a grievance mechanism
whereby they can also participate in the deliberations of the board of
directors
which happens to be their employer?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, if authorized by the Committee, I would like to
shed some light on the principle of workers participation at the level of the
enterprise which is, more or less, the official jargon used in the International
Labor Organization and other labor-related international bodies.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we will reserve our right to agree or disagree
depending on what Commissioner Ople will say.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
In most European jurisdictions, especially in northern Europe, they have
established highly successful work councils at the level of the enterprise
where
largely non-adversarial issues are taken up so that before they can mature
into adversarial issues, labor and management, in that atmosphere of
cooperation
through a work council, are able to come to an early agreement, which both
sides consider helpful not only for industrial peace but also for productivity.
And so, when I look at this and when I cast my vote in favor of Section 3 (b),
that is what I would have in mind, that such fora within companies or work
councils will precisely give both workers and employers the opportunity to
consider matters of mutual interest. This is also a recognition that the
productivity and profitability of a company are a vital concern of the workers
and if that is so, then the expectation is not given a forum, like a work
council. They have something to contribute and that they can participate in
policies that redound to the mutual benefit and to the common good of the
enterprise.
That is how I view this particular phrase concerning workers participation,
Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Could I just add to what Commissioner Ople already explained
about workers participation in the light of the questions of Commissioner
Regalado? Perhaps, it would be good for him to know that there are three
levels in which employees could influence management in their decisionmaking, and
one would be at the corporate level. This would refer to strategic policies
pertaining to the mergers, acquisitions, pricing and marketing policies,
disposition of profits and the like. The second level would be the plan on
department level. It is here where administrative decisions are made.
Decisions
made in this level may refer to hiring, firing and promotion of employees,
cost and quality control, resource allocations, achievement of target quotas,
et
cetera. And the third will be the shop-floor level. It is here where the socalled operating decisions are made. Decisions made in this level usually
refer
to scheduling of work, safety regulations, work methods, training of new
employees. So, these are the different levels in which we hope there would
be this
democratic participation of workers in vital issues that affect both
management and the workers.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just some supplementary remarks to the example cited by
Commissioner Ople.
In the local scene, there are two outstanding although admittedly
exceptional, examples of corporations that do not have labor unions but
precisely have
created over the years what they call employer employee councils where a
lot of issues affecting the welfare of the workers are discussed regularly by
workers and employers in a completely nonconfrontational manner. I am
referring to the United Laboratories and Timex, a multinational corporation.
These
have managed not to have labor unions, although I am saying that they are
exceptional cases. They are models of corporations that can work and
protect in a
very exemplary way the welfare of the workers without the need for
confrontation.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, with those explanations. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I thought Commissioner Romulo has something to say.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Regalado satisfied?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just one more amendment by
transposition because of those explanations which reveal the deliberative
intendment of this
phrase. It will be noted that under Section 3 (b), the State does not only
recognize but it guarantees the seven rights mentioned herein: namely,
self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike, security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, living wage and participation in policy- and decisionmaking processes as has been explained here. Since the State has to
guarantee, of
course, it can guarantee only through law. And Commissioner Suarez has
stated that while the phrase in accordance with law here refers to the right
to
strike, but since all these other rights mentioned can only be guaranteed by
the State through provisions of law that will be enacted for that purpose,
aside from other rights supplementary to those that may already be existing,
then I would like to propose a transposition of the phrase in accordance with
law, which comes after the phrase the right to strike to the first sentence,
such that it will read: Guarantee, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, the rights of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful
concerted activities including THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. They shall be entitled
to security . . .
In other words, all these are in accordance with law and the enumeration of
rights there is in a consecutive process, since we have already eliminated the
phrase for their mutual benefit, welfare or aid, which in the first place was
not necessary because of the necessity referred to them.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, before we vote on that proposal, I would like
to ask the Committee exactly what it means by that phrase. The very cogent
explanation of Commissioner Aquino is now out of context because the
linkages provided before no longer exist.
So, first, I would like to ask: What is exactly the intention of the Committee
with regard to the phrase AND TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICY AND DECISIONMAKING
PROCESSES AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS? In other words, how does the
Committee envision this to take place? What Commissioners Villegas and
Ople are talking
about is voluntary, if it exists in the Philippines. If that is the interpretation
given to this phrase here, that it is guaranteed by the State,
therefore, it will become compulsory
MR. ROMULO: So, may I ask Commissioner Aquino who is speaking on behalf
of the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, let me define and reiterate the parameters
covered by the phrase TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICY AND DECISION-MAKING
PROCESSES
AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS.
We begin from the basic premise that at the barest basic minimum, the
workers are consulted on matters pertaining to their interests, and the
parameters
would be references to the negotiations in the collective bargaining
agreement and its terms. These would cover the processes of grievance
machineries;
likewise, these would pertain to the voluntary modes of settling labor
disputes and the conciliation proceedings which can be initiated and
mediated by the
Ministry of Labor.
MS. AQUINO: Does that satisfy the Commissioner?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, because that is the same answer which the Commissioner
gave me the first time.
Thank you.

MR. MONSOD: May we have a suspension, Madam President?
It was 4:13 p.m.
MR. SARMIENTO: The Committee has reformulated Section 3 (b). May I ask
that the Chairman of the Committee, Commissioner Monsod, be recognized
for the
reformulation of Section 3(b).
MR. MONSOD: May I ask Commissioner Aquino to restate the Article and to
make an explanation of the issue we had discussed before the Chair
suspended the
session?
MS. AQUINO: First, we shall address the clarification of the position of the
Committee on the matter of participation in policy- and decision-making.
Some
of the Commissioners may have perceived a measure of difference and
conflict in the interpretation of the Committee, so this now will be our
submission in
interpreting the phrase participation in policy and decision- making
processes affecting their interests. What is it? What it is in terms of
processes
has been previously defined in response to the query of Commissioner
Romulo. We were referring to the grievance procedures, conciliation
proceedings,
voluntary modes of settling labor disputes and negotiations in free collective
bargaining agreement. What it is, pertaining to the scope and substance,
would now be the rights and benefits of workers. In other words, the focus of
participation is now introverted to the rights and benefits of the workers.
What it is not refers to the practice in the industrialized nations in Europe
and in Japan referring to codetermination which pertains to charting of
corporate programs and policies.
However, the other matters mentioned by Commissioner Quesada which she
just read for purposes of informing the Commission are already rightfully
covered in
the negotiations of the collective bargaining agreement. So just to eliminate
the confusion, these are the parameters contemplated by participation in
policy and decision-making processes.
The Committee is proposing an amendment to delete the word interest on
the first page and substitute the words RIGHTS AND BENEFITS if only to
clarify the
intention of the Committee on this matter.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may we ask a question in connection with what
was said by Commissioner Aquino?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Is the Commissioner saying that codetermination is covered by this
provision?
MS. AQUINO: Precisely we were saying it is not.
MR. FOZ: Then what is the use of this provision? It does not advance any
labors position. It is just a statement of what is already provided for under
existing structures or practices.
MS. AQUINO: That was the reason why we defined codetermination in the
context of the practice in Japan and the industrialized nations in Europe. The
term
codetermination pertains to participation of the workers in corporate
planning, the charting of corporate business, modes and procedures of
corporate
management and acquisition of property.
MR. FOZ: The Commissioner does not foresee the passage of a law under this
provision which would allow workers to be represented in the board insofar
as
certain matters are involved?
MS. AQUINO: We envision that as the evolution of a process but not arising
from a compulsory mandate from the Constitution.
MR. FOZ: But a law may be passed?
MS. AQUINO: Congress has the inherent right to pass legislation.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, on behalf of the Committee, may we be
allowed to read the paragraph.
Section 3(b) reads: guarantee the rights of workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful and concerted activities
including the right to strike as may be provided by law. They shall be entitled
to security of tenure, just and humane conditions of work and to a living
wage, and to participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I request that we defer our voting
on this section because of the reservation made by Commissioner Colayco. I
talked to
him and he told me that he will submit his proposal integrating paragraphs
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 3 tomorrow morning.
MR. REGALADO: I was on the floor just before the Chair suspended the
session. I share the same view that considering the reservations made by
Commissioners
Colayco and Padilla, I will also defer any further proposals on this point so
that they could all be integrated instead of being repeated.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I propose a vote on this issue because there are
some Members here, including myself, who feel that the very exhaustive and
strenuous debates that have already taken place could end up as a highly
futile undertaking unless we now take a vote on these amendments.
Although I would
like to agree with the others, without prejudice to the amendment that
Commissioner Colayco may bring up tomorrow in accordance with the
original
agreement, I suggest .
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, Commissioner Ople is suggesting that the
body proceed to vote on principle on this point?
MR. OPLE: Yes, without prejudice to any amendments that Commissioner
Colayco will bring up tomorrow in accordance with the original agreement to
which all
of us subscribed.
MR. COLAYCO: I disagree with the thinking of Commissioner Ople. The
discussion of the various rights, programs and principles which are embodied
in Section
3 and the very illuminating comments given by Commissioner Ople himself,
Commissioners Aquino, Quesada and will not go to waste because these are
of record
and whether these provisions which we have now discussed will be approved
or not by tomorrow, or whether my own ideas are approved, surely they will
constitute a point of reference for future Congress when it tackles the
improvements which we are proposing in this Article. So it is not correct to
say
that they will go to waste; definitely not because Congress will surely consult
the beautiful and very elaborate discussions that took place this afternoon
when Congress tackles this section.
So, I move that further discussions be postponed until tomorrow morning.
MR. BENGZON: Before the session was suspended, the body had earlier
agreed that we would proceed on discussing and amending Section 3 and all
the other
sections.
With respect to Section 3, we have approved paragraph (a) without prejudice
to incoming amendments. However, after its approval, there were
amendments that
were attempted to be introduced. This was also true in Section 3 (b).
So, we can proceed and approve Section 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d), together with
all the amendments thereto without prejudice to Commissioner Colaycos
amendment tomorrow. He will either rise or fall with his amendment.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I shall now resume my seat. But before I do so, I
just want to say that I am addressing myself to a question of proportion, and
I am talking about debates that have taken place the whole day on these
highly controverted sections. I just want to point out that in accordance with
the
original agreement, we could act on these amendments now without
prejudice to Commissioner Colaycos proposals to be given tomorrow
morning.
Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: The Committee agrees with the points raised by
Commissioner Ople, Madam President. If the Floor Leader, together with
Commissioner Colayco,
would insist on the motion to defer, the Committee would request a vote on
it.
MR. COLAYCO: I will not insist; I leave it to the Committee.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, may I be recognized, just for a moment.
MR. BROCKA: When Commissioner Colayco stood up and mentioned about
letters that he had received questioning the way we are making the
Constitution, making
allusions to the fact that what we are doing is legislating by including all
these details, I cannot help but wonder how the past Articles were approved
without this particular question being brought up. Some of those Articles that
we approved on Second Reading and Third Reading are full of details also.
I felt that since this particular Article on Social Justice is a new one, it is only
the consensus of the members of the Committee that some of these
things be spelled out. Precisely, we have been very careful in the meetings
because we are very conscious about the problems of legislation. It is always
cropping up. If the body is going to insist on that and vote on this part, then I
would suggest that we be consistent from beginning to end in order to be
fair to others because there will be other Articles that will still be submitted. I
just cannot understand why this is being brought up now. Labor is such
a delicate and a very important item in the Article on Social Justice. This is
why it is necessary to come up with these details. If they are going to
insist on that and if the body is going to vote on it, then I would suggest that,
for the remaining articles, by all means, let us stick to that and come
up with a noncontroversial article. I just find it a bit unfair.
MR. BENGZON: If there are no more amendments to Section 3(b), we can

now proceed to vote, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, may I say a few words?
MR. PADILLA: With regard to the remarks of Commissioner Brocka, there is a
great deal of difference between, for example, the executive, the legislative
and the judiciary departments because both the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions have many sections which are absolutely necessary. On the
other hand, the
provision on Social Justice under the 1935 Constitution is only expressed in
one sentence; and under the 1973 Constitution, in two sentences, only
consisting of one section.
On another point, I would like to inquire, before we undertake to vote on this
Section 3(b) which consists of two paragraphs. After the phrase the right
to strike, it says, in accordance with law. I think that has been changed to
as may be provided by law. Is that correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: Can we not also end the second sentence with the same
phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW?
MR. SUAREZ: I think that is substantially acceptable in principle to the
Committee.
I am making this observation because in our discussions, Commissioner
Lerum made reference to the Labor Code, which is a presidential decree;
then
Commissioner Foz spoke not only of salary but also cost of living allowance
and other benefits. If these are provided in a collective bargaining
agreement,
well and good. But under the Marcos regime, through the exercise of
Amendment No. 6, the Ministry of Labor issued Wage Order Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6
which are all impositions on the private sector. The benefits in those wage
orders are not even applicable to the employees of government. I am glad
that
the proposed Section 3(b) says as may be provided by law so that it will be
clear that we are not recognizing, and much less, constitutionalizing the
provisions of the Labor Code by presidential decree or the wage orders
issued by the ministry. It has been the complaint of many in the private
sector that
there are impositions on wages, COLA, benefits and so forth which are not
made applicable even to the employees of government. We should realize
that
sometimes in our efforts to grant more rights and benefits to labor, they may
result in discouragement to capital and management; and instead of
protecting
labor by giving more opportunities for work, they may result in detriment to
labor. Some private firms, especially those on the marginal level and which
barely make sufficient profits, have sometimes been induced, if not
compelled, to close. So instead of having more industries and more
opportunities for
work, we might be reducing these same opportunities for work which will
benefit labor.
MR. OPLE: I do not know whether I should address this question to
Commissioner Padilla or to the Committee. But certainly, the Committee is
silent; it
would be acquiescing to a strange theory that minimum wage fixing is by
nature abhorrent to the State or to this Commission.
Earlier, I had the privilege to put a question to the Committee and
Commissioner Aquino graciously obliged with an answer to the effect that
when we speak
of modalities, referring to voluntary modes of dispute settlement and
strengthening collective bargaining and negotiations, there is no implication
that
the government is thereby abandoning minimum wage fixing as a national
policy. The Minimum Wage Law was started in 1951 with the Minimum Wage
Act of
Congress of 1951. It was reasserted in 1965 when the minimum wage went
up from P4 to P6. Then it was reasserted again in 1970, when the minimum
wage became
P8 and, of course, it was continued later on because of intermittent
economic crisis beginning with the first energy crisis. Whenever the OPEC
decided to
raise the prices of oil by quantum leaps, then it became necessary to
mitigate the plight of the workers here by enacting minimum wage orders. I
think
those wage orders benefited most of the workers, especially the unorganized
workers without unions and without collective bargaining agreement. I just
want
to make sure that Commissioner Padillas views on minimum wage fixing do
not go unchallenged and that the Committee, by its acquiescence, gives its
own
imprimatur to these views for purposes of determining the intent of the
Committee and of the Constitutional Commission in paragraph (b) of Section
3.
MR. LERUM: The statement of Commissioner Padilla that the Ministry of Labor
and Employment issued these minimum wage orders is not correct. These
minimum
wage orders and cost of living allowances were issued by then President
Marcos in accordance with Amendment No. 6 and with the concurrence of
the Batasang
Pambansa.
I remember that during a caucus wherein the labor sector was invited, it was
agreed that as far as wage fixing and cost of living allowances were
concerned, these would be done through decrees on the ground that the
Batasang Pambansa would find it very difficult to enact such measures. So, it
is not
correct to say that these issuances were made by the MOLE; these were
done by the President. Of course, it was possible that under Amendment No.
6 itself,
the Batasang Pambansa could overrule the President. I think that is
something that may have been forgotten by others. Under that decree, the
President
could be overruled by the Batasang Pambansa through a bill filed and
approved by it.
We are very insistent that this provision on the living wage should be
included here to emphasize to the legislature that wage fixing should not be
forgotten and that whenever necessary, Congress should exercise its power
so that the workers will not suffer.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, if these Wage Order Nos. 1 to 6 were not
issued by the Ministry of Labor and Employment but by President Marcos in
the
exercise of Amendment No. 6, then I stand corrected.
But the fact is that there were so many wage orders, like Wage Order Nos. 1
to 6, which were only made applicable to the private sector. The government
employees did not receive some of the benefits in those wage orders. I
should not be misunderstood as against living or even decent, reasonable
wage, but I
believe that wages should be more the agreement between labor and
management, as what we say, through self-organization, collective
bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities. Wages must be living wages;
they must be decent wages, and if possible, profitable wages. What I am
saying
is that under the martial law regime Wage Order Nos. 1 to 6 were
successively imposed by the government on the private sector which was
not in full
conformity with them because they were imposed regardless of the financial
condition of the private firms. And so some private firms who barely made
marginal profits and could not comply with these wage orders were forced to
close. That is a fact that cannot be denied. So, Madam President, when wage
orders lead to the closure of some business enterprises, it affects the
economy. It is not only bad for the employers in the exercise of the
controversial
right to lock out but it is also bad for labor.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Padilla proposing an amendment on the
last sentence?
MR. PADILLA: I propose to add to the last sentence the phrase AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. SUAREZ: That has already been accepted by the Committee.
MR. BENGZON: It has been accepted by the Committee, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I reply?
MR. LERUM: In reply to the wrong statement made by the distinguished
Commissioner Padilla, may I say that in every decree issued regarding
minimum wage and
cost of living allowance, there is always a provision that those who cannot
afford can apply for exemptions. In other words, there is a saving clause so
that nobody is forced to pay if he cannot pay. I know that as far as

management is concerned, most of these firms do not want to pay even if
they can
afford to do so. It is really good that the labor unions can bargain with
management and so they are able to obtain higher wages than those who
are not
organized. And the reason we have these decrees on minimum wage and
these allowances here is to help those workers who are not members of
unions and who
have no collective bargaining agreement so that they can afford the high
prices of commodities. There is always a safety clause there that those who
cannot
afford to pay are exempted, provided that they so prove that they cannot
afford to do so.
I have seen several applications for exemptions claiming that they cannot
pay, but in between the figures in the financial reports, I found that some
expenses were not really warranted. Instead of showing a profit, some
showed an even proposition in which case the National Wages Council will
decide to
grant or not the exemption. But what we want to emphasize is this: That in
these wage orders issued, there is always that provision that those who
cannot
pay may file for exemption. So it cannot be said that these are unjust
impositions on management.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with the manifestation of Commissioner
Colayco and the explanation of Commissioner Bengzon, I think the body is
now ready
to vote on Section 3(b).
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Aquino read once more the reformulated
Section 3(b) with Commissioner Padillas amendment which was accepted by
the
Committee.
MS. AQUINO: The amended Section 3(b) will read as follows: Guarantee the
rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations
and peaceful and concerted activities, including the right to strike as may be
provided by law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, and to a living wage and to participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits, AS MAY BE
PROVIDED
BY LAW.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I have a question to ask before we vote.
Is there a comma between the word benefits and the phrase AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Therefore, the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW would refer
not only to participation in policy- and decision-making processes, but also to
security of tenure and humane conditions of work and living wage, is that
correct?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. FOZ: This is different now from the phrase in accordance with law in
the provision containing the phrase including the right to strike. Is there no
difference?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, there is a difference.
MR. FOZ: What is the difference?
MS. AQUINO: As the Commissioner may have noticed, the qualifier as may
be provided by law in the first part of Section 3(b) pertains only to the right
to
strike but it does not have any reference to the right to self-organization,
collective bargaining and so on and so forth.
MR. FOZ: There is a degree of difference then between the right to selforganization and the right to security of tenure?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, there is.
MR. FOZ: In the case of security of tenure, Congress, through enactment of a
law, may deprive certain groups of workers from enjoying the right to
security
of tenure?
MS. AQUINO: Congress can only legislate to the extent that it is not
inconsistent with the constitutional mandate.
MR. FOZ: So Congress can do anything?
MS. AQUINO: Therefore, when the constitutional mandate says that the
security of tenure is guaranteed, that cannot be withdrawn by a statute from
Congress.
MR. FOZ: Is the Commissioner saying that with regard to security of tenure,
Congress can withdraw it but in the case of self-organization, it cannot?
MS. AQUINO: Precisely, that is what I am saying.
I said previously that Congress can legislate only to the extent that it is
consistent with the constitutional mandate. Therefore, when the Constitution
says that workers shall be entitled to security of tenure, Congress cannot
withdraw that right.
MR. FOZ: Then what other things can Congress do with regard to security of
tenure?
MS. AQUINO: It can amplify. It can reenforce.
MR. FOZ: It can also restrict?
MS. AQUINO: It can regulate; but it cannot withdraw and deny.
MR. FOZ: It cannot restrict?
MS. AQUINO: It can regulate and, therefore, necessarily this contemplates
that Congress can restrict according to the tenor and mandate of the
Constitution.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: May we suspend the session for two minutes?
It was 5:33 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed. The Acting Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Colayco be

recognized for his motion to defer our voting on Section 3(b).
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President.
My main reason for asking that the provisions of Section 3 be reduced to a
minimum length is that most of the rights and policies enumerated in Section
3
(a), (b), (c) and (d) are already in our statute books as well as recognized by
our Supreme Court. For the sake of brevity, I am planning to capsulize all
these four paragraphs and mention the two rights the right to participate
in policy-making and the right to a just share which are not otherwise
adequately or clearly established in our statute books.
If we vote now, the opinion of this body might be formed and influence its
thinking against my proposal because when I make my proposal tomorrow
the body
might say, Pinaghirapan na natin ito kahapon; bakit ba natin bubungkalin
pa? Second, I do not like to be rushed into submitting a proposal or
amendment
which has not received adequate thinking on my part. The least I would like
to ask is to give me a chance to think this over tonight, and I promise that
first thing when we meet tomorrow, I will submit it to the body.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say to this motion of
Commissioner Colayco?
MS. NIEVA: With due respect to Justice Colaycos opinion on this section on
labor, we think that it is most unfair to defer this because the Committee of
17 has worked on this for over a month now, and we have taken into
consideration all the views and the so-called guidelines as to how
constitutions should
be made. We believe that the issue here is so important that we cannot
simply capsulize the safeguard that we want to constitutionalize into one or
two
sentences or even into one paragraph.
We tried our very best. If the Commissioner has sat down with us from the
very beginning he would have known that our whole Article on Social Justice
consisted of several long pages which had undergone about five or six
exhaustive redrafting precisely because we wanted to do justice to what we
hoped
would be the centerpiece of the 1986 Constitution.
I think I speak for the rest of the members when I say that we plead to our
fellow Commissioners not to emasculate the section on labor which we had
all
worked for so long and so painfully for.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, the body is now ready to vote on the
motion.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words the Committee is objecting to the motion of
Commissioner Colayco for deferment of the voting on Section 3(b). Is that
correct?
MR. RODRIGO: I propose a compromise. We have already voted on Section
3(a), have we not?
We are now ready to vote on Section 3(b) which has been discussed
thoroughly.
My compromise is: Let us vote on Section 3(b), and then defer discussion of
Section 3 (c) and (d). Would that not be acceptable?
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, it is acceptable. Also, I would like to erase
from the minds of some of our Members here that I have been unfair to the
Committee. I think the President knows that.
MR. RODRIGO: Is my proposal acceptable to the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, the Committee accepts that proposal.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, we have a pending matter.
MR. FOZ: I am objecting to the amendment of Commissioner Padilla adding
the words AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW after the word benefits at the
end of the
sentence.
MR. BENGZON: Point of order, Madam President.

MR. BENGZON: There is a pending motion to defer voting on this matter. Let
us dispose of that first before we take up the objection of Commissioner Foz.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I would like to say that there is already a
compromise acceptable to both.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: So we are now discussing Commissioner Padillas amendment
AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and Commissioner Foz is objecting to it.
Are there any other comments?
MR. FOZ: I am objecting to the addition of the words AS MAY BE PROVIDED
BY LAW on the basis of the explanation of the Committee on the effect of
such an
amendment on the rest of the sentence, including the phrase security of
tenure and humane conditions of work, etc.
If the amendment would only affect the last clause of the sentence, then I
would withdraw my objection. But it seems that the intention of the
proponent,
as explained by the Committee, is that the amendment would affect all the
rest of the provision.
I maintain that this would be a drawback to what is now contained in the
1973 Constitution, particularly the right of the workers to security of tenure.
We
do not find such a proviso or such a clause AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW
with regard to security of tenure in the present Constitution. It will weaken
the
workers right to security of tenure to say that it will be there AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Foz through?
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I think the solution is very simple. The only issue here is about
the comma. So, if we are willing to remove that comma after benefits, I
think MR. FOZ. I am objecting to the amendment of Commissioner Foz would
be satisfied. I asked Commissioner Padilla, the proponent of the amendment,
of AS
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, and he said he did not place a comma there.
So, I would like to ask Commissioner Foz if he would be satisfied if that
comma were removed.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Commissioner say?
MR. FOZ: May I give way to Commissioner Davide? I think he has a proposal,
Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: If the intention is to limit the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY
LAW to the last part of the paragraph; that is, to participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting the rights and benefits, as a happy
compromise I would propose the following: Between the words and and
to insert
a comma (,) and the following: AS PROVIDED BY LAW and another comma (,)
so it will read: and, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, to participate in policy
and
decision-making processes affecting the rights and benefits. I propose this
amendment if the intention really is to contain that particular proviso to
this last clause.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, may I have some clarification from
MS. QUESADA: When the Commissioner says, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY
LAW, is the intention for the law to implement this particular provision on
the
participation in policy- and decision-making processes?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MS. QUESADA: Is it possible also that legislation may not provide for such
participation?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because the opening sentence of Section 3 is, IT SHALL BE
THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO:
MS. QUESADA: So, legislation may not.
MR. DAVIDE: This is just to avoid the misconstruction, if the words AS MAY
BE PROVIDED BY LAW will be after benefits.
MS. QUESADA: The reason why some of us object to putting this clause AS
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW is the possibility that the law may not provide
such an
implementation.
MR. DAVIDE: What may be provided by law is the mechanics, but it is the
duty of the State to provide for it. That is my interpretation.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I made a suggestion but I think the
suggestion of Commissioner Davide is an improvement to my suggestion. So
I yield to his
suggestion if it is acceptable.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner withdrawing?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, as the proponent, I am sorry, I cannot accept
the amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is the original proponent.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, if the amendment of Commissioner Padilla has
been accepted by the Committee, it is for the Committee now to accept or to
reject.
MR. PADILLA: In fact, I believe that my proposal was already accepted by the
Committee.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: To clarify the position of the Committee, I think there may be a
difference in terms of appreciating whereof we come and whereof
Commissioner
Foz comes.
When we say AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, it does not necessarily mean
that the law will restrict, delimit, withdraw, eliminate or subtract. In fact, this
phrase can be looked at in the context of the law defining, reenforcing, giving
specific mechanics, amplifying all in the positive aspect.
MR. FOZ: But it can also be in the negative aspect.
MS. AQUINO: In the same way that we recognize that Congress will always
have the inherent valid right to provide for the statutory implementation of
the
MR. FOZ: The impression being created by the addition of the words AS MAY
BE PROVIDED BY LAW is precisely to restrict the concept of security of
tenure
of the workers. We do not find the same provision or the addition of the
words AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW in the 1973 Constitution. Why should
we put it
here now?
FR BERNAS: Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: I think the problem is not just legal but also political. By
political, I refer to the effect this would have on the workers because it would
be read as a retrogression. Let me read the sentence in Section 9 of Article II
of the 1973 Constitution. It says:
The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work
If we give now any impression that we are limiting these, it could be
demoralizing to workers, even if the reaction of workers is a result of a
misunderstanding by them of our intention. The only novel thing we have in
Section 3(b) is really the last clause and to participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits. My
recommendation would be that we put a period (.) after the phrase after
living wage,
and treat this novel provision here as a separate sentence.
MR. MONSOD: So it reads: THEY SHALL PARTICIPATE . . .?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, THEY SHALL participate in policy and decision-making

processes affecting their rights and benefits AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. I
think if
we put this phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW at the end of one
continuous sentence, then the working class can easily misunderstand this
as stepping
back, as being retrogressive. So my proposal would be to put a period (.)
after living wage and start a new sentence to read: THEY SHALL
participate in
policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits AS
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
MS. NIEVA: Can we say THEY SHALL ALSO PARTICIPATE, because there is
the sentence starting with They shall be entitled?
FR. BERNAS: It is a matter of style; I accept that.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How does Commissioner Padilla react to this amendment?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I regret I cannot accept that proposed
amendment to my amendment. It is the same as the previous one.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move that we now vote on
Commissioner Padillas amendment. I think the matter has been sufficiently
discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: With all the interpretation that the phrase AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW affects all the rights, security of tenure, et cetera, of the
workers?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, this is just a comment. I think labor will
misunderstand if the Commission will make them misunderstand. But the
Committee is
very clear that the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW is meant to
implement what in this provision is guaranteed by the State. So the law may
not
eliminate but it can only implement and execute that right. Since this
provision is not self-executory indeed, how will we implement security of
tenure,
if not by law? How will the details for a living wage be provided if not by law?
So, since we are going to do these all by law, what is the harm in saying
AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, as long as we understand that it is not in
derogation of their rights, but rather in implementation and enhancement

thereof?
THE PRESIDENT: Which is the intent, as stated by the Committee.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: I support the amendment of Commissioner Bernas because it
establishes very clearly the intent of the Committee as the members have
conveyed it.
Besides, it is also expressed in better English than what we have heard. Also,
it has a better syntax.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla does not accept it.
FR. BERNAS: May I just add something. I would say that it is not just a
question of our trying to make the workers understand this correctly, but by
phrasing it the way it is phrased now, we are giving ammunition or fuel to
those who will be willing to mislead the workers.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that clear?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, the body is now ready to vote on the
amendment of Commissioner Padilla.
THE PRESIDENT: So, will the Chairman of the Committee please read the
amendment of Commissioner Padilla.
The body is now voting on the whole Section 3(b), so may we request the
Commissioner to please start from the beginning.
MS. NIEVA: Referring to the Padilla amendment, the last sentence reads as
follows: They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of
work, and to a decent living wage and to participate in policy and decisionmaking processes affecting their rights and benefits, AS MAY BE PROVIDED
BY
LAW.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Padilla will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment will please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, I am abstaining from voting.
abstention; the amendment is lost.
THE PRESIDENT. What is the next amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO: I move that we vote on the amendment of Commissioner
Bernas.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Chairman of the Committee please read it.
MS. NIEVA: The Bernas amendment reads like this: They shall be entitled to
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and to a living wage. THEY
SHALL
ALSO participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of this particular amendment will please raise
Those against will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
MR. COLAYCO: I abstain, Madam President.
abstention; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Romulo be
recognized.

MR. ROMULO: In view of the restructuring of the sentence, I must now ask
Commissioner Aquino whether or not the previous interpretation she gave
me as to
the modes of participation still stands.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, the interpretation still stands.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, may we vote on Section 3(b)?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have not yet voted on Section 3(b) as a whole. We
voted only on the proposed amendments.
So, the body is requested to vote on subparagraph (b) of Section 3, as finally
worded. Will the honorable Chairman of the Committee please read the
whole
section?
MS. NIEVA: Section 3(b) reads: Guarantee the rights of workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful and
concerted
activities, including the right to strike as may be provided by law. They shall
be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and to a
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
MR. BENNAGEN: So I can vote intelligently, even as I am a member of the
Committee, I would like to seek the counsel of Commissioner Foz in his
capacity as
a reviewer on labor laws for the Philippine Bar. Is the present formulation an
advance over the 1973 provision? Does the present formulation advance the
cause of social justice for workers?
MR. FOZ: Offhand, I really do not know, but I am a little frustrated by the last
sentence of the provision in subparagraph (b) about participation in
policy- and decision-making processes affecting the rights and benefits of
workers. At the beginning, I thought that that was the maximum that we
would
allow them, that the intention of the Committee was to enable
representatives of labor to sit on the Board of Corporations, even as a

minority group, to be
able to voice their concern over issues affecting their rights and benefits in
the corporation. But, as explained by the Committee, the intention was just
to refer to matters provided for by existing laws and practices in labormanagement relation, which in effect would relegate labor not exactly to the
level
of the usual servant-master relationship.
But this provision does not provide for anything new, so if I would have the
chance, which I do not have, I would move for the deletion of this last
sentence because we are providing for something that we do not intend to
give to the labor sector.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I ask the Commissioner a question?
MR. MONSOD: May I ask the honorable Commissioner if his interpretation of
this section is that the relationship between labor and management should
be a
master-servant relationship?
MR. FOZ: May I have the question again?
MR. MONSOD: The Commissioner mentioned that he is unhappy because this
section is merely a reiteration of a master-servant relationship. Is that his
interpretation of the meaning of this Section 3(b)?
MR. FOZ: No; I just said that because I thought we are ready to make
provisions like this to advance the cause of labor. This is a provision on labor.
We
have to go beyond what is happening now. If we do not provide for anything
new, we might as well forget it.
MR. MONSOD: The Committee believes that this last sentence is something
new. So, it is only a matter of interpretation. That is why I was asking the
Commissioner if his interpretation is that this sentence is not new because it
merely retains a master-servant relationship.
MR. FOZ: It does not mean what it says.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just ask for a vote because
apparently there is a difference in perception?

MR. DAVIDE: I would like to raise a point of order, if there is a call for a vote.
The body has just voted on the provision. It was just a personal view of
Commissioner Foz when he was asked a comment.
MS. NIEVA: We have not voted yet on the entire Section 3(b).
THE PRESIDENT: We are voting on the entire section now.
MR. DAVIDE: I object to that. That would be out of order. In effect, it is asking
for a reconsideration of the previous action of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair does not take it that way. We are not recognizing
the statement of Commissioner Foz as a motion to reconsider.
MR. DAVIDE: So, will we take it as a motion to reconsider?
THE PRESIDENT: No, we are not accepting it as a motion to reconsider. What
was to be voted upon was the entire Section 3(b) as read by the Chairman.
Is that clear now? Do we need to repeat because of these interruptions?
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, maybe we should be reminded of what
Commissioner Felicitas Aquino said that even as it is worded now, this will
allow for
evolution later. It does not close avenues for future development.
MR. BENGZON: Can we vote now on the entire subparagraph (b)?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of Section 3(b) will please raise their hand.
Those against will please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
MR. COLAYCO: I abstain.
THE PRESIDENT: Those who abstain will please raise their hand. (Few
The results show 36 votes in favor, none against, and 5 abstentions; the
section is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, Commissioner Rodrigo made a
compromise proposal which was adopted by the Committee and the body
that we defer discussions
on Section 3(c) and (d).
Madam President, in view thereof may I move for the adjournment of the
session until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning?
motion is approved.
The session is adjourned until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
It was 6:23 p.m.
Footnotes:
R.C.C. NO. 50
Thursday, August 7, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Florangel Rosario Braid.
PRAYER
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Lord of Creation: In supreme wisdom You have

bestowed bountiful gifts upon Your children. In this country of ours, You have
been
generous beyond measure. We marvel at the abundant resources of nature,
pleasing to the eye and provident to our physical needs. You have endowed
many of
Your children with talents to be dedicated to the service of humanity. And yet
there is hunger and weeping in the land. The powers of darkness hang over
us, shaking our faith in ourselves. As we strive for truth and social justice,
our thoughts dwell on the words of the poet who said:
To you the earth yields her fruit, and you shall not want if you know how to
fill your hands. It is in exchanging the gifts of the earth that you shall
find abundance and be satisfied. Yet, unless the exchange be in love and
kindly justice, it will but lead some to Breed and others to hunger.
Help us see the need to be independent and the grace to admit our need for
interdependence, the need for self reliance and yet to be compassionate to
others.
We have completed an important milestone; we have listened to our people
who have helped us identify the hues, the weave and the pattern of this
tapestry
a document which hopefully would capture their aspirations.
We thank You for the dedication of our fellow Commissioners, for the sacrifice
of our Secretariat and support staff, and our fellow countrymen out there in
the gallery, whose love for our country and people has motivated them to
share with us their hopes. Continue to inspire us to work for Your greater
glory.
Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present*
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present*
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present*
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present*
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present*
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we dispense with the reading of
motion
is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we approve the Journal of the
previous session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
of Business.
motion is approved.
Reading and Communications, the President making the corresponding
references:
RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION TWENTY-EIGHT OF THE RULES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION BY ALLOWING RECONSIDERATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS EMBODIED IN
THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE ITS FINAL APPROVAL.
Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Crispin C. Maslog, President of the Philippine Association of
the Philippine Association of Communication Educators, College, Laguna,
recommending a broad-based ownership of mass media establishment of
more community-based newspapers and broadcast stations, Filipinization of
mass media
ownership, and prohibition of cross-ownership of mass media, among others.
Letter from the Daughters of Mary Immaculate, Our Lady of Remedios Circle,
Malate Catholic Church, M. H. del Pilar, Malate, Manila, recommending some
measures for the establishment of a moral regeneration of v throughout the
country.
Letter from Mr. Jaime Hermida Ching, a con worker in Dammam, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, containing his suggestions in the framing of the new
Constitution.
Letter jointly signed by Messrs. Horacio M. Monteferio, Cesar P. Macasero,
Arturo P. Casuga, and Pedro L. Esteban, requesting inclusion in the Article on
Education, Science, Technology, Sports, Arts Culture of the Constitution the
following proposed provision: THE STATE, IN PARTNERSHIP, THE INDUSTRIAL
AND
BUSINESS SECTORS, SHALL ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND SUPPORT AN
INTEGRATED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL
EDUCATION AND TRAINING FROM THE
SECONDARY TO TERTIARY LEVELS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE HUMAN SOURCE
DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION.
Letter from Mr. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., D Executive Secretary, Office of the
President, Malacaang, transmitting the letter of Sgt. Joven Giangan of
PAF, Mactan Air Base, Lapulapu City, seeking the abolition of the political
party system.
To the Committee on Constitutional Commission Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Rolando Cimafranca of Chugum cor. Abanao Street, Baguio
City, seeking a definite provision in the Constitution protecting the right to
life
of the unborn from the moment of conception.

Principles.
Letter from Mr. Justino E. Honculada of 311 D. Alviola tillage, Butuan City,
expressing apprehension over the approval of a constitutional provision
allowing illiterates to vote.
Letter from Mr. Victor Gruta of Biriran, Juban, Sorsogon, submitting an
unnumbered resolution of the Biriran Irrigators Service Association,
requesting
exemption of small landowners from the implementation of the land reform
program.
Letter from Mr. Hilario L. de Pedro III, O.I.C. of Koronadal, South Cotabato by
the municipal government of Koronadal, favoring, among others, the
retention of U.S. military bases, a bicameral legislature, election of
Congressmen by district, presidential type of government, and the abolition
of the
death penalty.
Communication signed by Mr. Omar Mendoza of the UP Science Research
Foundation and three thousand nine hundred thirty-five others with their
respective
addresses, seeking the inclusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging
the State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
Principles.
Communication from Mr. Haji Jameel Ramli A. Noor of 3 8 Pangarungan

Village, Marawi City, submitting for consideration by the Constitutional
Commission a
manuscript entitled: Islamic Autonomous Government or Federal State for
the Muslims: The Only Acceptable Formula is Its Incorporation in the New
Constitution to Formally and Finally Integrate the Muslims into the Philippine
Body Politic.
Letter from Mr. Cesar V. Canchela, transmitting the position paper of the
United Architects of the Philippines, CCP, Roxas Boulevard, Metro Manila,
recommending, among others, for inclusion in the Constitution the utilization
of the services of Filipino professionals and consultants on government
projects funded by the Philippine government and from foreign loans and
grants.
Letter from Mr. Santiago B. Galang of 14 7th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City,
expressing apprehension over the influx of the Chinese and their monopoly
of
businesses in the Philippines.
(Communication No. 483 Constitutional Commission of 1 986)
Letter from Mr. Isaias P. Costelo of 285 Picnic Ground, Tugbungan,
Zamboanga City, proposing, among others, a presidential type of
government with a
bicameral legislature and the creation of a Commission on Appointments.
Communication from Ms. Edna Desalapo of 2258 Int. 11-53 Leveriza, Malate.
Manila and one hundred twenty others from Sta. Ana, Pandacan, Leveriza
and San
Andres Bukid, Manila, suggesting provisions on social justice, housing,
education, labor, family and womens rights, among others.

Letter from Mr. Erlindo P. Llanera of Villa Maria Subdivision, Travesia,
Guinobatan, Albay, suggesting a preamble couched in the language of Godloving
citizens of a free nation, a four-year presidential term and nonimmunity from
suit of the President.
To the Committee on the Executive.
Communication from Ms. Trifona P. Macapanas for the Ramis Barangay High
School Students Organization Hinabangan, Samar, submitting resolutions
proposing
the abolition of the National College Entrance Examination and allowing
colleges and universities to administer entrance examinations; and the
adoption of
Tagalog as the medium of instruction.
Letter from Ms. Fe Samaniego for the National Spiritual Assembly of the
Bahais of the Philippines, Inc., 1070 A. Roxas, Singalong, Manila, submitting
proposals for the State to inculcate in the individual the conviction and
consciousness of the essential unity of the human race as the only viable
standard for social and economic justice, and for the State to provide free
elementary and high school education in public schools wherein comparative
religion shall be taught.
Letter from Messrs. Lito Urgino and Frank Padilla for Families for Justice and
Peace, 300 P. Guevarra, San Juan, Metro Manila, submitting 5,830 signatures
in support of Resolution No. 272, introduced by the Honorable
Commissioners Nieva, Bacani, Muoz-Palma, Rigos, Gascon, and Guingona,
to incorporate in the
Constitution a separate article on the protection and promotion of the rights
of the family; and recommending the approval of a provision which mandates
the protection of the life of the mother and the unborn human life from the
moment of conception.
Principles.
Communication from Ms. Maribel C. Purisima of the Ministry of Trade and
Industry and one thousand five hundred and twelve other petitioners,
seeking to
include in the Constitution a provision obliging the State to protect the life of
the unborn from the moment of conception.
Principles.
CONSIDERATION OF
Continuation
MR. RAMA: I move that we take up the unfinished consideration of the Article
on Social Justice which is now in the period of amendments.
motion is approved.
The honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on Social Justice
are requested to please occupy the front table in order that we may proceed
with the
continuation of the period of amendments.

It was 10:02 a.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, while the text of the amendment of
Commissioner Colayco to Section 3 is still being xeroxed, I move that we
proceed to Section 5
since there are no proponents of amendments for Section 4.
May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my amendment is in connection with the
second sentence of Section 5 which reads: To this end, the State shall
encourage . . .
After the word shall, put a comma (,) and add the words BY LAW then put a
comma (,). So with my amendment, the sentence will now read: To this end,
the
State shall, BY LAW, encourage and undertake the just distribution . . .
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I call the attention of Commissioner
Jamir to the clause as Congress may prescribe. Does the Commissioner not
feel that
the clause adequately satisfies the requirement regarding the insertion of his
amendment between the words the State and shall? The clause as
Congress
may prescribe is descriptive or restrictive of the previous phrase.
MR. JAMIR: I believe so, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Suarez refer to the clause and other
conditions as Congress may prescribe which would not necessitate the
insertion of
the words BY LAW after the State shall?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President. We suggest that there must be
a comma (,) before the word as.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I am transposing my amendment to the first

sentence instead. So after the word shall, it will read: The State shall, BY
LAW,
undertake a genuine agrarian . . .
MR. SUAREZ: I think there is merit in the transposition.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we would like to call attention to certain slight
corrections. We have already agreed to remove genuine as a qualifying
word
for agrarian reform on the first line. The Committee had already accepted
this.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Jamir satisfied?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, the whole sentence would now read: The
State shall, BY LAW, undertake an agrarian reform program . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Can we now proceed to vote?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President, because the amendment has been
accepted by the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the amendment proposed on the
first line of the draft of the committee report? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized
to amend Section 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized .
The amendment is very simple. On the third line of Section 5. between the
words farmworkers and to, I propose to insert a comma (,) after
farmworkers
followed by the phrase ESPECIALLY THE LANDLESS then put a comma (,)
after it. And on the fourth line after till, put a comma (,) so it will read: and
regular farmworkers, ESPECIALLY THE LANDLESS, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till, OR, in the case of other . . .
MR. TADEO: Commissioner Davide, maaari bang pakiliwanag lamang kung

ano ang ibig sabihin ng landless?
MR DAVIDE: The term landless refers to the regular farm workers or the
farmers who do not own lands of their own. So, priority must be given to
them,
because the farmers and regular farm workers mentioned here may or may
not have lands of their own, and I want priority to be given to the landless of
these farmers and regular farm workers.
MR. TADEO: Marahil mas magaling kung ipaliliwanag natin ito nang mabuti.
Ang programa nitong nakaraan sa ilalim ni Ginoong Marcos ay tinawag na
land for
the tillers. Ngunit noong panahon ni Presidente Magsaysay, tinawag naman
itong land for the landless. Ang mga farmers at regular farm workers ay
parehong landless.
MR. DAVIDE: No, not necessarily. In the course of my interpellation, the
Gentleman admitted that if one has a small land but works on the land of
another
during the off-season, he may be entitled to get that particular land of
another, in addition to his own.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that phrase may not be in the
contemplation of the Committee because it means, as Commissioner Davide
has said, that somebody
who already has land and may be helping his neighbor by being a hired
manager of the adjoining lot, would still be entitled to acquire that adjoining
lot
under the agrarian reform program. To include the landless, meaning even
those who already have land, to be beneficiaries under the agrarian reform
program
is not the intent of the Committee.
MR. DAVIDE: No, that was not the answer of Commissioner Tadeo to my
question before.
MR. TADEO: Commissioner Monsod, palagay ko ay mayroong katuwiran si
Commissioner Davide. Ang tinutukoy niya ay ang mga farmers and regular
farm workers na
walang sariling pag-aari at nagsasaka pa sa iba.
MR. TADEO: Ang binibigyan ng priority ay iyong landless farmers and regular
farm workers na walang sariling lupang sinasaka at nakikisaka pa sa iba.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, I think that should really be the thrust of land reform.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, but there is a division in the Committee. When we say
especially the landless, that suggests that even those who already have
land would
still be beneficiaries.
MR. DAVIDE: Let us just clarify this for the record. What really is the objective
of land reform? Is it to give priority to the landless and should not be
applied to farm workers and farmers who already have lands of their own?
MR. TADEO: I agree with Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: So, I think the Commission will have to decide on this particular
issue-the scope of agrarian reform.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I offer an amendment to the
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Davide accept an amendment by
placing the word LAND LESS between regular and farmworkers so that
it will read:
on the basic right of farmers and regular LANDLESS farmworkers. . .
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment will not remedy the apparent conflict in the
interpretation, because under that particular interpretation, it would apply
only to
regular landless farm workers but not to farmers with out lands of their own.
So, I really would seek a definite stand of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, Commissioner Davide does not accept the
proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because it will remedy only partly, not the entire concept of
land reform.
It was 10:20 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod will please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: We have arrived at a formulation here, so instead of saying
ESPECIALLY THE LANDLESS, we will say WHO ARE LANDLESS.
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment will be placed farmworkers, so instead of
ESPECIALLY LANDLESS, it should be WHO ARE LANDLESS?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it will now read: The State shall by law undertake an
agrarian reform program founded on the basic right of farmers and regular
farms WHO
ARE LANDLESS to own directly or collectively. . .?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: I agree, Madam President, and there should be a comma (,)
after till on the fourth line.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, just a question for clarification.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the phrase WHO ARE LANDLESS modify both farmers
and regular farm workers?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Maybe between the words LANDLESS and to, we should
put a comma (,) so that it refers to farmworkers WHO ARE LANDLESS. . .
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How is that now? Will Commissioner Monsod please repeat.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the first part of Section 5 will now read:
The State shall by law undertake an agrarian reform program founded on
the basic
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own
directly. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other pro amendment on this first sentence so
that we can on this?
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, for the sake of our being able to explain it
adequately to the people to whom we shall be explaining this, may I know
how
we justify the basic right of farmers and regular workers who are landless to
own directly or collectively the land they till? I do not see any difficulty
in saying that the farmers and farm workers have a right to some property
because that is needed for dignified living. That they should have a basic
right
precisely to the land they till is; however, something I do not see very clearly
and I would have to explain that to the people.
I see this distribution and redistribution as an exigency of the common good
and, hence, instead of affirming that this is founded on the basic right of
farmers and farm workers who are landless to own the land they till, I would
rather say that it is because the common good so requires it. That would
be
an amendment I would like to introduce in case I do not get a satisfactory
explanation.
In other words, I am not against their owning directly or collectively the land
they till. I think that is an imperative; I think that is necessary. What I
do not see so clearly is that that action of the government should be
premised on the basic right of the farmers or the farm workers who are
landless to
own precisely the land they till.
MS. NIEVA: So, would the Bishop suggest that the phrase founded on the
basic right of farmers be replaced by another phrase?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, and instead I suggest: ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXIGENCY
OF THE COMMON GOOD, the State shall undertake an agrarian reform
program so that
farmers and regular farmworkers, WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own directly or
collectively the land they till.
MR. TADEO: Commissioner Bacani, dati itong primacy, ngunit pumayag na
rin kami sa inyong mungkahi sa isang pagpupulong ng Committee na gawin
natin itong
basic right.
BISHOP BACANI: Hindi po ako ang nagmungkahi noon. Present ako, pero
hindi ako ang nagmungkahi noon. Si Commissioner Monsod yata ang
nagmungkahi noon.
MR. TADEO: This is what basic right means it is a principle in agrarian
reform whereby those who actually till the land have the supremacy to own
the
same in a manner that is expeditious and/or in common with others. Ang
mismong nagtatrabaho sa bukid, ang magsasaka, ay mayroong pangunahing
karapatan or
first opportunity na magmay-ari at unang dapat makinabang sa bunga ng
kanilang pagod at pawis. Ito po kasi ang pangunahing principle at objective
ng
agrarian reform.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I do not deny that that is the principle.
What I would like to know is how we will justify that principle since it is not
self-evident? That is what I am trying to say. It is not a self-evident principle
that they should own precisely the land they till. That they should have
a primacy of right to the fruits is evident to me. That they should have also a
basic right to some property is evident to me. But that they should have a
basic right precisely to this land that they till is not as evident to me, and .
that is why I am not rejecting it as yet. I am asking for an explanation
of that not self-evident principle.
MS. AQUINO: I would yield to Commissioner Monsod, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, let me just give an example and see
whether that concretizes what the Commissioner is talking about.
Let us say that Juan is tilling the land of Jose. In the case of Jose, he may be
one of those small land-owners allowed to keep their land under the
retention limits as Commissioner de los Reyes said today. Now, Juan still has
a right to own land because he is a tiller and he is landless and, perhaps in
such an instance, he would have a priority to public land that can be
alienated. Is that what the Commissioner means?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. In other words, that is it. When we say that farmers
have the basic right to own the land they till, it means that is true in each
and
every circumstance without any exception. So that when they till a certain
land and they fall within this category, then they can claim the right to own
that land and there is no possibility of denying that claim whatsoever.
MR. MONSOD: This is just a trial formulation to see if it reflects the Bishops
thinking. Suppose we amend the first part of this paragraph to read: The
State shall by law undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the
basic right of tillers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own land
directly or collectively or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just
share of the fruits thereof.
BISHOP BACANI: It does not seem to meet what I am trying to say. Can we
really, upon having put this in the Constitution, explain this? I think this is
one
of the instances in the Constitution where we affirm something theoretical.
MR. MONSOD: But that formulation took out precisely the phrase the lands
they till but recognizes that a tiller who is landless has a right to own land.
I am only trying to see if this is what the Bishop has in mind, but this is
certainly not the position of the Committee.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, that would be what I mean when I say that they are
entitled to some land, and they are entitled even principally to the fruits of
that
land but not necessarily entitled to own the land they till.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, now we understand the point of the Commissioner, and
maybe that is something for the Committee as a whole to consider.
BISHOP BACANI: So, may I propose that as an amendment the
Commissioners own formulation which is a happy one for me and which, I
think, meets the
exigencies of land reform.
THE PRESIDENT: I think our difficulty is with the interpretation of
Commissioner Bacani that the phrase basic right means an unqualified and
plenary
right to claim.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. In other words, when we speak of a basic right, then we
have a basic right to property or a basic right to life.
MS. AQUINO: Would it satisfy the Commissioner if we find an alternative to
the phrase basic right or to the word right, if only to approximate that
kind of a difficulty and address the problem of that interpretation?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. I would argue for something like a great

appropriateness. After appropriateness I do not know how to word it.
There is really a
great appropriateness for them to own the land they till. Or maybe we can
even speak of an imperative. That is why on account of the common good
there is
that imperative. I do not argue against the fact that they must own land.
MR. MONSOD: In other words, the Commissioner does not want a strict
absolute correspondence between the land that is being actually tilled and
the right to
own by a tiller.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but they ought to have the right to own some land and
the government must guarantee that to them.
MR. BENGZON: In other words, what the Commissioner is saying is that it
does not automatically mean that they have that basic right to own the land
that
they specifically till.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. that is it; not in all cases. The way it is formulated now
does not seem to admit of any exception, if it is a basic right.
MR. BENGZON: We understand that now. Would the Commissioner like to
propose that amendment so that the Committee can react to it?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. May I propose the formulation of Commissioner Monsod
which, I think, expresses it.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas desires to make some comments on
this.
MR. VILLEGAS: Could I contribute some insights into the principle behind
agrarian reform? In the Constitution, Article XIV, Section 13 states:
The Batasang Pambansa may authorize, upon payment of just compensation,
the expropriation of private land be subdivided into small lots and conveyed
at
cost deserving citizens.
If we will remember, this really made constitution history because it went
beyond the principle of eminent domain that the State can expropriate
lands in
small lots for distribution to deserving citizens. But the principle behind this
had nothing to do with the right of tillers to own the land they till.
This was premised on precisely the exigencies of the common good. The
social function of property which requires that in specific circumstances when
political and social stability is threatened, the government or the State has,
with just compensation, the right to expropriate land.
I completely share the fears of Commissioner Bacani about stating a basic
right, and I would be more comfortable of another reason were cited. I am
very
much in favor of giving lands to small farmers. I think that is a requirement
of political, social and economic stability. But I think we are treading on
dangerous grounds in articulating a certain basic right. Let us also keep in
mind that there are certain countries like Taiwan which in 20 years or so, in
one generation, has literally gone the full circle and is now implementing an
agrarian reform program which is exactly to consolidate their small farms
because the common good dictates that they should not have small farms
anymore.
A study of Taiwan in 1986 will show us their land reform program which is
completely the opposite of what they implemented in the 1950s because
they
realized that the common good requires that they do not grow sugar in onehectare properties, but should start to grow more and more in large-scale
farming. We cannot constitutionalize certain provisions which are
requirements of the common good today, but which 20 years from now may
be completely the
opposite
That is why I am very much in favor of this provision making sure that today,
in 1986, the millions of landless farmers should have land that they can till
which they can call their own, but let us be very careful about
constitutionalizing that kind of an exigency of the common good today which
may not be an
exigency of the common good in the year 2000.
MS. NIEVA: Is Commissioner Villegas proposing an amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, I propose an expression like because of the
requirements of the common good.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, gusto ko lang pong magpaliwanag.
MR. TADEO: Kung napapansin ninyo, nakalagay dito ang pariralang: to own
directly or collectively, at sinasabi ninyong nagsasaad ang collectively ng
common good. Ngunit mayroon pang mga lupain at batay iyan sa uri ng
pananim, gaya ng mais at bigas na kinakailangang ariin mo tulad ng

tricycle upang
maalagaan mong maigi. Ngunit actually hindi tayo titigil doon. Alam naman
nating ang hiwa-hiwalay at pira-pirasong pagsasaka ay hindi produktibong
pagsasaka. Kaya tutungo rin tayo roon sa yugto ng cooperative farming o
collective farming at makakamtan din natin ang common good. Actually,
hindi pa
kayang tanggapin ng magbubukid sa kasalukuyan ang sama-samang
pagmamay-ari, iyong sinasabi nating common good. For change to endure,
the idea of the
cooperative farm must come from within, not merely imposed on them.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized .
MR. VILLEGAS: The common good and collective farming are not
synonymous, so there is no correspondence between the use of the common
good and the advocacy
for collective farming. The common good is a high principle which I suggest
as an alternative to the phrase a basic right. And definitely, as I said, I
do not think we have reasons to quarrel over the final result. The final result
should be that small farmers today are able to own their one-hectare,
two-hectare, three-hectare lots planted to corn, coconut, cacao and other
types of crops. So, there is no question about that.
MR. BENGZON: Would Commissioner Villegas agree to a formulation being
made by Commissioner Monsod which will coordinate and correlate with the
amendment
proposed by Commissioner Bacani which states that: IN THE PURSUIT OF
THE COMMON GOOD THE STATE SHALL BY LAW UNDERTAKE AGRARIAN
REFORM PROGRAM FOUNDED ON
THE BASIC RIGHT OF FARMERS AND REGULAR FARMWORKERS, WHO ARE
TILLERS AND LANDLESS, TO OWN DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY. . .
In other words, we inject the thought of the Commissioner to the amendment
of Commissioner Bacani.
It was 10:42 a.m.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, the proponents have reached a meeting of
minds, so may I call on Commissioner Bacani to present the basic
amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, after I present my amendment, the
Committee itself will explain the meaning of a very important word which we
have agreed
upon to make it official.
The amendment by deletion simply goes this way The State shall BY LAW
undertake AN agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and
regular
farmworkers, WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till . . .
Madam President, a very vital explanation is on the word right and the
elimination of the word basic. I would like that to come from the
Committee
itself since we already agreed on this.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair wishes to be clarified with regard to the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Bacani. In other words, it is still the same,
except
for the elimination of the word basic.
BISHOP BACANI: The elimination of the word basic has left the word right
being understood in looser sense than one might first construe upon seeing
it.
And that is why I am asking the Committee to give that explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: And is the Commissioners proposed amendment different
now from the original version that was given to us by Commissioner Monsod?
We just
want to clarify that.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Madam President, but the sense approximates that.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that formulation does not really mean an
absolute correspondence because that right is also subject to the second
sentence
which says, subject to such priorities, retention limits and other conditions
as Congress may prescribe. However. the Committee feels that it is
important to retain the words the lands they till because really in practice
that would be the preferential route as far as identification of the land is
concerned.
MS. AQUINO: The deletion of the term basic is best understood in the
context of the proposal of Commissioners Romulo and de los Reyes, which
will be an
insertion of a sentence after the word compensation. However,
preliminarily, it is the Committees position that the deletion of the term
basic and the
retention of the word right means that the polar star when we expound
the principle of land reform is that the farmer has a right to the land he
tills, but this is not an immutable right. In other words, his claim of ownership
does not automatically pertain or correspond to the same land that he is
actually and physically tilling. It would yield to the limitations and
adjustments provided for in the second sentence of the first paragraph,
specifically
the retention limits and the amendments of Commissioners Romulo and de
los Reyes, which the Committee is accepting.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I think that is the official sense and it
translates the meaning that was sought for in the amendment before, and
that is
why that is presented in this form now.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Villegas say?
MR. VILLEGAS: I accept the formulation, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just point out two things here: In
the first sentence, the Committee has already accepted the term BY LAW
which was
introduced by Commissioner Jamir; in the second sentence, we have
formulated the phrase as Congress may prescribe. This sentence is really a
long
sentence and even includes the consideration of whatever law Congress shall
prescribe.
THE PRESIDENT: So, this is now accepted by the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may we request that Commissioner de los

Reyes be recognized to propose an amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: This is an amendment jointly being submitted by
Commissioners Romulo, Monsod and Tingson. It is an additional sentence
after the word
compensation, which shall read as follows: THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE
RIGHTS OF SMALL FAMILY LANDOWNERS IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE
RETENTION LIMITS.
MR. TINGSON: I should like very much to support that amendment because I
feel that that is very necessary in order for the small landowners of our
country
to feel that they are neither ignored nor their basic rights totally neglected. I
understand, Madam President, that in one of the Supreme Court decisions,
small landowners made references to the hardworking and frugal people
who in a lifetime of sacrifice gathered their pitiful little savings and
purchased
small farms to supplement the inadequate pensions from the Government
Service Insurance System or the Social Security System. So I would like to go
on
record that I am in favor of that amendment and I appreciate very much the
privilege of being part of that amendment.
MR. REGALADO: Will Commissioner de los Reyes accept an amendment to
the amendment by eliminating the word FAMILY just say SMALL LAND
OWNERS. not
necessarily SMALL FAMILY LAND-OWNERS.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Inasmuch as the Committee has already stated in
advance that it has accepted my amendment, I would like to throw it to the
Committee,
although personally I have no objection to the elimination of the word
FAMILY.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say to the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Regalado?
MS. AQUINO: The Chairperson initially manifested the Committees
acceptance of the amendment to the amendment; however, we wish to
clarify that our
reference to small landowners does not necessarily mean that they should
be owner-cultivators, according to the definition that we have adopted. In
other
words; small landowners here who are entitled to State protection do not
necessarily refer only to owner-cultivators. However, there is one basic
principle
which should be respected and which we would accommodate that the
tenancy relationship be abolished. This is the basic principle of all land
reform codes
presently in effect.
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is in that spirit that this amendment is being offered.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, may Commissioner de los Reyes answer
just one question?
MR. DE CASTRO: What does the Commissioner mean by small landowners?
How big is the land owned?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That will be as determined by law, although at present
the retention limit, I understand, is seven hectares.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, this section would now include or extend its
coverage to all agricultural lands. So, we feel that Congress will have a better
opportunity to define not only limits for land but for specific types of land or
crops, even perhaps suitable to different areas, because there are
different conditions for different crops in different areas. We do not want to
preempt Congress on this, although the intent is quite clear in the
provision where we are referring to small, and it is up to Congress to define
small in specific instances.
MR. TINGSON: I do understand that there is a case entitled Nilo vs. Court of
Appeals, whereby the case states that small landowners are referred to as
having 24 hectares or less. Is that true to coconut?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee would just like to clarify that
there may be cases defining small, but since the coverage of this Article is
wider than it was before, there would be need for additional congressional
clarification of that point.
MR BENNAGEN: Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: The question of defining small in terms of absolute figures
is a tricky business because it depends on the number of variables, like soil,
climate, and all that. In any case, I think the provision, as formulated,
provides us some criteria, and these are subject to or shall take into account
ecological, developmental or equity considerations. We cannot be definite as
to sizes, with respect to rice, corn or whatever crops, because these are
variable, and this is proven by researches worldwide .
MR. JAMIR: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President.
MR. JAMIR: May I know from the Committee the exact meaning of the words
agricultural lands. I ask this question because our Supreme Court considers
even
residential lands as part of the agricultural lands. Even our 1973 Constitution
divides lands into agricultural, mineral, and forest lands. So, I would
like an authoritative definition from the Committee, if that is possible.
MR. TADEO: Ayon sa aklat ni Commissioner Nolledo, ang Principles of
Agrarian Reforms, Cooperatives and Taxation, ang definition ng agricultural
land sa
ilalim ng Section 166, RA 3844, ay land devoted to any growth including, but
not limited to, crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle land and abandoned land.
MR. JAMIR: So, the provision of RA 3844 cited by the Gentleman is a
definition of agricultural lands by the Committee.
Thank you.

MR. PADILLA: I heard from Commissioner Aquino that there is absolute
prohibition or abolition of the system of tenancy. I know that under RA 3844,
some
lands devoted to rice and corn were subject to land reform, if there is a
tenancy relation but not when there are farm laborers. In my opinion, Madam
President, the position of a tenant, who since the time of President Quezon
was given 70 percent of the produce of rice land, is better or preferable to a
farm laborer who only receives a minimum wage. The tenant who receives
70 percent of the produce is, in effect, an industrial partner who contributes
his
labor and yet receives the greater portion of the harvest; whereas a farm
laborer does not share in the productive income of the farm but is only
entitled
to a minimum wage.
I cannot understand why under RA 3844, there was preference for the farm
laborer and discrimination against tenancy. In my opinion, the status of a
tenant
as an industrial partner is higher and better than a mere farm laborer who
does not share in the profits of the farm but is only paid a minimum wage. So
I
am surprised why there should be a statement that the land reform is based
on absolute abolition of the tenancy relation in preference for some farms
with
farm laborers. Madam President, that was the loophole in the correct
implementation of the land reform program. There were certain landowners
who were
clever enough to make it appear that their tenants who are their industrial
partners of their farm workers in the production of rice and corn were only
farm laborers, and therefore, no longer subject to land reform; whereas those
who acknowledge the true fact that they had tenants as their industrial
partners were subject to land reform.
So, I would like the Committee to respond whether the real intention is to
abolish absolutely the tenancy relation because it is a social evil, because in
my opinion, a tenant has a better and a higher relation than that of a mere
farm laborer.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we agree that there may be instances of
share tenancy where the tenant might actually receive more than if he were
a mere
employee. However, the system of tenancy is looked upon as the source of
many evils, although not necessarily evil per se. How we want to solve the
situation is the phrase in the first sentence where we talk about farm workers
who have a right to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. We look at
this as a solution to the question on whether they really end up in a worse
situation by changing the system from tenancy relation to an employeerelation
because then the concept of an industrial employee will come in when that
employee receives a just share of the fruits thereof. If we notice, this is a
parallel clause in the subsection on Labor because in a way there is a parallel
situation in those two cases.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is a pending amendment which has been
accepted by the Committee and the proponent is insisting that it be voted
on. This
is the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first approve the amendment of Commissioner
Bacani with respect to the first sentence .
MR. DE LOS REYES: I am not insisting. There is no objection.
MS. NIEVA: The Bacani amendment reads this way: The State shall by law
undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and
regular
farmworkers WHO ARE LANDLESS to own directly or collectively the lands
they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the
fruits thereof.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized .
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote on that, may I ask the proponent some
questions?
MR. RODRIGO: The ones who are covered by this sentence are farmers and
regular farm workers who are landless. What is the proponents concept of a
farmer
who does not own land? Is he somebody who farms another persons land? Is
that correct?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, I believe that is what the Committee and I mean.
MR. RODRIGO: Regular farm workers, who are landless, are regular workers
in somebody elses farm?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, that is also the meaning.

MR. RODRIGO: Let us say I own a farm, but instead of hiring regular farm
workers, I hire planters during the planting season. Then I hire harvesters
during
the harvest season and I hire another group of thresher These are not regular
farm workers, are they?
BISHOP BACANI: They do not fall under the term regular farm workers.
MR. RODRIGO: And they are not farmers?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, in the sense given here.
MR. RODRIGO: So if I am the owner, and I want to evade this provision, all I
have to do is not to hire regular farm workers.
BISHOP BACANI: That case will then have to fall under the following clause:
in the case of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits
thereof.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but those other workers are no given the right to own the
land. Is that it?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: I was just talking to somebody from Quezon Province, and he
told me that in coconut areas there are no farmers. Is this right? He said
there
are no farmers in coconut areas because they do not plow every year, they
do not plant yearly but they just plant once and then wait for the coconut to
grow. There are only coconut watchers or coconut pickers.
BISHOP BACANI: I myself would not be able answer that. May I refer this to
the Committee, Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. TADEO: Commissioner Rodrigo, kapag sinabi nating farmer, mayroong
tenancy relation na tinutukoy. Ang ibig sabihin ng tenancy relation, mayroon
kang
rental na ibinibigay sa iyong panginoon na may-ari ng lupa. Sa ilalim ng
niyugan, kapag tayoy naghati, ang two-thirds ay sa panginoong may lupa at
one-third sa magsasaka. Ito ang tinatawag na rental na ibinigay; mayroong
tenancy relation. Hindi natin puwedeng sabihin ito dahil batay dito sa isang
thesis na ginawa ni Col. Virgilio David, sinasabi niya na mayroong 515,000 na
tenant farmer families ang nasasangkot na mayroong sharing. Ang hatian po
kasi sa niyugan, one-third, two-thirds two-thirds sa panig ng panginoong
may lupa at one-third sa panig ng tenant.
MR. RODRIGO: Samakatuwid, ang ibig bang sabihin ng tenancy ay crop
sharing? Kung mayroong crop sharing, iyan ba ang kahulugan ng
tenancy? Kapag ako
ang mayroong plantation ng coconut, at aalisin ko ang crop sharing . . .
susuwelduhan ko lang ang mga pipitas ng niyog at wala na bang tenancy?
MR. TADEO: Wala pong tenancy. Babagsak sila sa farm workers.
MR. RODRIGO: Ngayon, sapagkat walang tenancy, ang karapatan lamang ng
farm workers ay just share. Wala silang karapatang magmay-ari noong
lupa.
MR. TADEO: Ngunit kung regular ang participation ng farm workers, primary
sa production.
MR. RODRIGO: Kung regular. Ngunit kung bilang may-ari ng lupa, hindi ko
gagawing regular at uupa ako ngayon ng isang grupo. Sa isang taon, uupa
naman ako
ng ibang grupo. Hindi magiging regular. Samakatuwid, hindi babagsak sa
kategoriya ng tenancy, kayat hindi sila maaaring magmay-ari ng lupa.
Ganoon po ba?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we are instituting here a new provision
which will take effect upon ratification. In that instance, there is already a
history
to look at. When we say that a particular piece of land comes under the
agrarian reform provisions of the Constitution, then we can also look into the
history of the relationship between that owner and the farm worker as
defined over the years. In other words, Madam President, that landowner
may not, upon
ratification, change their relationship to get around the law because, after all,
there would be records on what the relationship was.
MR. BENNAGEN: Parang maganda yata ang tanong ni Commissioner Rodrigo.
Doon sa deliberations, lumabas ang punto na ang sacada ay hindi kasama sa
tinatawag
na farm workers. Nabanggit ni Commissioner Rodrigo na ang principle

diyan ay mangyayaring irregular seasonal worker na maaaring palitan at
mas
nakakahawig ng sacada kaysa isang regular farm worker. Ito ang sinasabi
niya na maaaring loophole ng ganoong provision. That is the reason why
Commissioner
Monsod answered that the history of the relationship should be a safeguard
against this possibility of circumventing that provision of a landlord changing
his relationship with the tenants upon ratification of the Constitution. I think
that is an important consideration.
MR. RODRIGO: Samakatuwid, ang isang halimbawa nito ay iyong isang mayari ng coconut plantation at ang kanyang pasunod sa kanyang mga
trabahador ay crop
sharing at iyan ay ipinasiya niyang palitan at gawing suwelduhan.
Halimbawang limang taon nang suwelduhan? Titingnan pa rin ba ang
history? At kung bago
noong nakaraang limang taon, ang pasunod ay crop sharing, his workers will
come under the first category instead of under the second category. Ganoon
ba?
BISHOP BACANI: In that case, there would be no practical difference because
if they escape the term farmers they would, under that circumstance, fall
under regular farm workers.
MR. RODRIGO: If there is crop sharing.
BISHOP BACANI: No, if there is no crop sharing and they are paid for coming
regularly, they would fall under the category of regular farm workers.
MR. RODRIGO: Pero ang sinasabi ko nga, kung ako ay nagbabayad lamang ng
pipitas, hindi ako kukuha ng mga regular na pipitas. Madali naman ang
pumitas ng
niyog. Kayat kukuha ako ng ibat ibang tagapitas nang hindi maging regular
ang mga ito.
MR. MONSOD: I think the example of the Commissioner regarding workers
who have been seasonal workers for the past five years would fall under the
second
part where they are entitled to receive a just share of the fruits.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: If upon ratification of the Constitution a change in the

relationship of a regular farm worker is made, it is quite obvious in that
instance
that the intent is to go around the law and, therefore, the facts would speak
for themselves.
MR. RODRIGO: Suppose, before ratification, nabalitaan doon sa Quezon na
mayroong pinag-uusapang probisyon ang Con-Com, maaaring bago ma-ratify
ang
Constitution ay papalitan nila ang pasunod sa mga trabahador nila. At hindi
lang iyan, sinabi sa akin ni Ginoong Quintana, ex-Batasan MP, na maaaring
kumampanya silang huwag aprubahan ang Constitution sa Quezon Province.
Iyan ay isipin din natin.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Narinig ni Commissioner Ople. Nandito si Ginoong Quintana
kangina.
MR. MONSOD: We realize, Madam President, that there will be some gray
areas here. There will always be gray areas when we come out with an
Article like
this. With respect to the concerns of ex-Batasan MP Quintana, one reason
why the Committee is willing to accept the amendment of Commissioner de
los Reyes
is that we are hoping that that would solve some of his concerns.
MR. RODRIGO: There is another thing which I want to clarify. Do we mean to
say that crop sharing is identical with the word tenancy, that whenever
there is crop sharing, there is tenancy?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Tadeo answer that question?
MR. RODRIGO: Is tenancy synonymous with crop sharing? In many
advanced countries of the world, even in the United States, there is crop
sharing. If we
now say that crop sharing means tenancy, that would not be fair because
crop sharing is unlike tenancy.
MR. TADEO: Kung mayroong crop sharing, ay mayroong tenancy relation.
MR. RODRIGO: Kahit doon sa atin sa Bulacan ay mayroong tinatawag na
hunos sa gapas, hunos sa tanim. Ang mga gagapas, sa halip na bayaran ng
salapi ay
mayroong natatanggap na hunos. At ang mga nagtanim, sa halip na bayaran
ng salapi, mayroong hunos sa tanim. Kapag umaani binibigyan sila ng
kaunting
kaparte sa ani. Samakatuwid, nagkakaroon ng crop sharing. Ang ibig bang
sabihin niyan ay iyong mga gumapas at iyong mga nagtanim ay mayroon ng
tenancy
relation?
MR. TADEO: Iyon pala ang ibig ninyong sabihin kangina.
MR. RODRIGO: Hindi. Isang halimbawa lang iyan, mayroon pang iba.
MR. TADEO: Tama po iyan. Hindi ko lang kasi nakikita kung ano iyong iniisip
ninyo tungkol sa crop sharing. Tama po iyong mga hunos at gapas at giik sa
atin. Kamukha sa atin sa Bulacan, sa isang daan at dalawampung anihin,
labing-apat ang ibinibigay sa manggagapas at anim na kaban sa gumigiik.
Hindi po
iyon ang ibig kong sabihing crop sharing. Ang ibig ko pong sabihin ng crop
sharing na tinugon ko po sa inyo kangina ay iyong binibigyan kita ng rental.
Hindi po iyon ang ibig kong sabihin kangina. Seasonal po iyon; iyon ang
tinatawag naming mga hired laborers.
MR. OPLE: I wanted to put a question to Commissioner Rodrigo, and,
perhaps, also to the Committee, depending on his answers. There is no
necessary
correlation between tenancy and crop sharing, depending on how you define
crop sharing.
Dito po sa palayan at maisan ngayon, ang nakakaraming nabiyayaan ng
reporma sa lupa ay hindi iyong tumanggap ng CLT na titulo. Iyon siguro ay
mga
labinlimang porsiyento lamang. Iyong walumput limang porsiyento, iyon ang
mga dating tenants na ngayon ay nauwi sa leasehold. Mayroon ding
matatawag na
sharing iyan 75-25. Datapwat ang kaibahan, itong dating tenant, bagamat
hindi siyang may-ari, siya ngayon ang complete manager ng kaniyang
sinasaka.
Samakatuwid ay hindi na tenant pero nagbabayad pa rin ng katumbas ng
dalawamput limang porsiyento noong ani. Iyong leasehold, sa aming
paningin, mas
mataas ang naging antas ngayon kaysa doon sa magsasaka lamang.
MR. RODRIGO: Sang-ayon ako riyan, sapagkat ang inam noong leasehold
ay ang ibinabayad na buwis ng magsasaka ay eksaktong halaga. Kayat, pag
pinalaki niya
ang ani noong kaniyang bukid, lahat ng madadagdag na ani ay kanya na.
Hindi katulad ng crop sharing. Nadagdagan ang ani, nadagdagan din ang
kaparte ng
may-ari. Pero sa leasehold may tiyak na ibabayad.
Kapag nadagdagan ang ani, pag nagmasipag magsasaka, nagtanim ng
vegetables, nagtanim ng mga bagay sa lupa, ang lahat ay kanya.
MR. OPLE: Hindi lang iyon, kundi lahat ng management decision ay nasa
kamay ng nasa leasehold. Hindi katulad ng tenant na mayroong katiwalang
araw-araw ay
nag-uutos sa iyo kung ano ang gagawin mo. Samakatuwid, itatanong ko
lamang sa Komite, ito bang leasehold bilang isang uri ng land tenure ay
kabilang dito
sa agrarian reform na ating pinag-uusapan?
MR. TADEO: Magandang katanungan, Commissioner Ople. Gusto ko lang
liwanagin ang ibig sabihin ng tenancy iyong 50-50, 60-40, 55-45, 70-30.
Ito hong
leasehold ay kasama rito sa ating pinag-uusapan dahil sa sinasabi nating
retention limit, lalo na iyong hindi owner-cultivator, na nilinaw kanina ni
Commissioner Aquino. Halimbawa, sabihin natin na ang gamitin natin ay ang
P.D. No. 27, na ang seven hectares below ay maaaring iwan sa isang
panginoong may
lupa. Kaya iyong maiiwan sa kanya na seven hectares and below ay under
leasehold system, kaya kasama rito ang leasehold system, dahil doon sa
abolition ng
share tenancy.
MR. OPLE: Magandang balita iyan para sa maraming mga tenants ngayon na
ang unang hakbang sa kanilang liberasyon marahil ay hindi iyong tahasan o
tandisan
na siyang magiging may-ari ng lupa, kung hindi maaaring nandiyan sa
intermediate stage, sa kalagitnaan na leasehold muna; hindi siya ang mayari, datapwat
siya ang may poder, siya ang manager, siya ang nagdedesisyon tungkol sa
kanyang buhay.
Salamat po, Ginang Pangulo.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much, Commissioner Ople. Now, just one
more question. I had already asked this cursorily in a past session. I refer to
the word
own which I consider a very important word. I would not want to raise false
hopes among our farmers. Ownership, as it is defined now in civil law, has
different rights attached to it: jus posidendi, the right to possess; jus utendi,
the right to a use; jus fruendi, the right to the fruits; and jus
disponendi, the right to dispose . . . I would discard jus abutendi or the right
to consume the thing by its use, because it is anti-social. But then since
we say that the farmers will own the land they till, can they dispose of it or
can they sell it?
MS. AQUINO: To the best of my knowledge, all of the laws pertaining to the
implementation of land reform as a policy of the government would program
and
limit the right of a beneficiary-farmer who has been given an Operation Land
Transfer or a certificate of land transfer and would have delimited options in
immediate disposition of the property. Even with the Homestead Act, one is
not allowed to dispose a homestead that has been granted to him within a
period
of 50 years from the period or from the time it was granted. It may be a
question of programming or regulating or delimiting prerogatives of
disposition.
It is provided by law.
MR. RODRIGO: In other words, may Congress limit the farmers right to sell,
to dispose, even to mortgage the land?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Another right is the right to bequeath. We know that we have
close family ties in the Philippines. Many people work and they try to have a
parcel of land for the security of their children. Let us say that a farmer
obtains under this land reform program a 2-hectare land. He has five
children.
The farmer dies. Will his five children inherit the land?
MR. TADEO: Maaaring manahin.
MR. RODRIGO: Ng lima niyang anak?
MR. TADEO: Hindi po. Ngunit ang batayan po kasi nitong land fragmentation
ay ang economic family-size farm; hindi mo ito napapasabog. Hatiin mo,
halimbawa,
sa lima mong anak ang matitira dito; sabihin nating .5 hectares o 5,000
square meters lamang. Hindi na iyan makasasapat sa kanyang pamilya. Ang
tunay na
intensyon ng agrarian reform program, kapanabay nito ang pagtutulak ng
national industrialization, ay ang sobrang lakas-paggawa na papasok sa
industriya
para mapanatili ang economic family-size farm.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this is another limitation on the ownership, should this
proposal be approved as a constitutional provision. Congress can then place
limits on the right of the heirs to inherit from the farmer who will be
benefited by this provision.
Now, just one last point. May he transform a portion of the land which is
agricultural to a residential lot?
MR. TADEO: Under RA 1199, ang isang ektaryang sinasaka ay nagkakaloob
ng 300 sq. m. na home lot.
MR. RODRIGO: So, does Congress also have the discretion on this matter?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. TADEO: Hindi maaaring subdivision, maaaring magkaroon siya ng home
lot o lupang tirahan.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, this first sentence in Section 5 has been
sufficiently discussed. May I ask that we take a vote on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there still need to read it again?
MR. RAMA: There is no more need to do so. We have read it several times.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those who are in favor of the proposed Bacani amendment
to the first sentence of Section 5, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised
their hand.)
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 30 votes in favor, none against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President. There are still proponents ahead of
Commissioner de los Reyes, but Commissioner de los Reyes is requesting
that his amendment
which has been accepted by the Committee be voted upon before we take
up the other amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner de los Reyes please read his proposed
amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: As an additional sentence to Section 5: THE STATE SHALL

RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE DETERMINATION OF
THE RETENTION
LIMITS.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those who are in favor of the de los Reyes amendment,
The results show 36 votes in favor and no vote against; the amendment is
approved.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, just for the record, I think Commissioner
Villegas should be a cosponsor of the amendment I presented.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, on the same second sentence of Section 5, I
ask that Commissioner Treas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Treas is recognized.
MR. TREAS: Madam President, may I propose an amendment to the last
part of Section 5 which says: and subject to a just and progressive system
of
compensation. I propose to eliminate and progressive system of so that it
will read: and subject to a just compensation.
Madam President, in almost all the provisions of the Constitution, especially
in the Bill of Rights, we have uniformly used the words just compensation.
In case private property is taken for public use, we use the words just
compensation. In jurisprudence, it has been interpreted by the Supreme
Court in a
lot of cases. However, it seems strange that in this provision on agrarian
reform, in which a property of a landowner is taken and given to farm
workers,
just compensation will be qualified by the words progressive system. This
may cause again a lot of legal complications as to the proper interpretation
of
progressive system and will delay the payment of just compensation.
MR. MONSOD: When the Committee decided to include the word

progressive, we intended it to be an explanatory adjective to market. The
phrase just
compensation is supposed to be based on market prices, but we also
wanted that the market price of bigger tracts of land be made lower per
square meter
than smaller tracts of land. That was the idea behind it. It has nothing to do
with the manner of payment. By no means does it have any allusion to the
payment of 10 percent down or 90 percent to be paid later on. It was only in
the context of reflecting the market reality of real estate transactions.
If the honorable Commissioner is willing to accept that kind of interpretation,
that this reflect the fact that bigger tracts of land usually are priced at
a lower price per square meter, then that may not be necessary in this
sense. We just want to get away from a purely market price and to refine it in
that
sense.
MR. TREAS: Even in that sense, it will still end in just compensation,
without the use of the words PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM.
My purpose here is to simplify and use it uniformly because in the Bill of
Rights, we used the words just compensation. However, to that extent,
why add
PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM? So it will have a more uniform interpretation, we
eliminate PROGRESS SYSTEM.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, maybe the explanation give economist Mahar Mangahas
might help. He said that all that this implies is that the compensation formula
should
be progressive in the sense that income taxation is progressive; that is, the
proportion of the landowners sacrifice should be greater, the larger the
size of the landed estate. For example, if the purchase price is P20,000 per
hectare for the first 10 hectares, then it could be reduced to P15,000 per
hectare for the next 10 hectares; and P10,000 for the next 10 and hectares
so on.
MR. TRERAS: I agree with that. That is still just compensation.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. In other words, the PROGRESSIVE does not qualify the
word just, but rather the word compensation. So, it would still resolve in
a
just compensation. Maybe this is an important point that we would like the
body to vote on, whether it should still be included or subsumed in the word
JUST.
MR. TREAS: From the explanation of the Committee itself, it seems that the
phrase JUST AND PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM is not necessary because it is
included in
just compensation, and this may just cause complications later on,
especially since we have been using the words just compensation. That my
purpose
here.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. Madam President, may we ask the bodys judgment on it.
I think the proponent has already explained, and so does the Committee.
MR. TREAS: Yes. The only amendment eliminate PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM
OF and make it JUST COMPENSATION to make it simpler.
FR. BERNAS: We discussed earlier the idea of a progressive system of
compensation and I must admit, that it was before I discussed it with
Commissioner
Monsod. I think what is confusing the matter is the fact that when we speak
of progressive taxation, the bigger the tax base, the higher the rate of tax.
Here, what we are saying is that the bigger the land is, the lower the value
per square meter. So, it is really regressive, not progressive.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, it is true. It is progressive with respect
to the beneficiary and regressive with respect to the landowner.
FR. BERNAS: But is it the intention of the Committee that the owner should
receive less than the market value?
MR. MONSOD: It is not the intention of the Committee that the owner should
receive less than the just compensation .
FR. BERNAS: In what way, therefore, is it beneficial to the buyer if the owner
will not get less?
MR. MONSOD: As we said earlier, it was only meant to reflect the market
reality that in bigger tracts of land, the cost per square meter goes down.
Since
the priority of the land reform really starts from bigger tracts of land, there
would be benefits to farmers, if the bigger tracts of land are first
covered by the land reform program.
FR. BERNAS: I am not sure that the word progressive helps.

MR. MONSOD: We agree, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Because if the idea of a progressive system is that the buyer
should actually pay less, but somebody else makes up for the difference, like
the State, then it is clearly progressive in that sense for the tenant, and it is
also just for the owner.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, yesterday we answered that question
in which we said that just compensation to the landowner does not
necessarily mean
that the full payment will come from the beneficiary, because in some cases,
the State has to step in to make up the difference between what the farmers
can afford and what is just compensation to the landowner.
FR. BERNAS: If the meaning calls for a kind of subsidy from the State, rather
than use the word progressive, it is probably better to use a different
expression clarifying the fact that this may involve subsidy by the State.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, in fact, we were saying that we want
the body to decide because it may not be completely necessary at this point.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, I just would like to express the same
sentiment. As an economist, I find the word progressive really ambivalent
in that
specific context. When we say progressive in economics, it really means
the principle of giving more in law to those who have less in life, but
somehow
it does not capture this specific meaning in the phraseology that is used. I
would use another word, or just delete progressive.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee is also willing to consider an
amplification of the ideas of Commissioner Bernas, that in some cases the
State
may have to step in to make up the difference between just compensation to
the landowner and affordable cost to the farmer
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Concepcion be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion is recognized; afterwards we will

recognize Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you.
I think the thrust of the amendment of Commissioner Treas is that the term
just compensation is used in several parts of the Constitution? and,
therefore, it must have a uniform meaning. It cannot have in one part a
meaning different from that which appears in the other portion. If, after all,
the
party whose property is taken will receive the real value of the property on
just compensation, that is good enough. Any other qualification would lead to
the impression that something else other than that meaning of just
compensation is used in other parts of the Constitution.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: I was about to say what Commissioner Concepcion said. I just
want to add that the phrase just compensation already has a definite
meaning in
jurisprudence. And, of course, I would like to reiterate the fact that just
compensation here is not the amount paid by the farmers. It is the amount
paid to the owner. and this does not necessarily have to come from the
farmer. The State should subsidize this and pay a just compensation to the
owner and
let the tenant pay the State in accordance with the capacity of the farmer. If
there is a difference, let the State subsidize the difference. So, I support
the amendment of Commissioner Treas.
FR. BERNAS: May I propose a substitute amendment to read: just, AND
WHERE NECESSARY, STATE-SUBSIDIZED compensation.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Treas accept the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Bernas?
MR. TREAS: May I have it again?
FR. BERNAS: It will read: and subject to a JUST, AND WHERE NECESSARY,
STATE-SUBSIDIZED COMPENSATION.
MR. TREAS: I accept.

MR. DAVIDE: May I propose an amendment to the amendment? The
amendment will read: just compensation WHICH MAY BE SUBSIDIZED BY
THE GOVERNMENT.
FR. BERNAS: The sense is, it must be just to the owner.
MR. TREAS: Precisely.
FR. BERNAS: The owner should get the full market value. But then we have to
make a provision as to where the payment will come from.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide repeat his proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: So, it would be: just compensation, WHICH MAY BE SUBSIDIZED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other idea?
Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Yes. I object to constitutionalizing the subsidy. It is a power
inherent in the State. The commitment to agrarian reform as a central policy
of
social justice is very imperative. And I think constitutionalizing at this point
an obligation of the State to subsidize purchases of lands under the land
reform program might be taken as a mandate to fund all aspects of this
program with taxpayers money, even if a little more imagination in planning
and
skillful implementation could save the people lots of money. Instead of giving
a fiat right here in this Article, that the National Treasury ought to be
opened all the way in order to subsidize the difference in costs, I think just
compensation to the landowner need not mean government subsidy. If
subsidized compensation would become a built-in fiat in this Article, it will be
made the rule rather than the exception. In the nature of the real world
in which a government functions, it will tempt every land reform planner to
begin by saying that the State must subsidize this.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Regalado would like to be

recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, I propose an amendment to the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Treas. I support him in his statement that the
words just
compensation should be used because it has a jurisprudentially settled
meaning, instead of putting in other ambivalent and ambiguous phrases
which may be
misconstrued, especially considering the fact that the words just
compensation appear in the different parts of the Constitution. However, my
proposed
amendment would read: subject to THE PRIOR PAYMENT OF JUST
COMPENSATION. Let me explain. The purpose of this land distribution
scheme is that those whose
properties may be under land reform may be thereby placed in a position
after they have relinquished a portion of their property to invest in other
gainful
occupation. That was one of the purposes mentioned by the Committee. If
we just provide for payment of just compensation without stating at what
particular
time that payment should be made, what happens to the landowner who has
now been dispossessed of his property? Where can he make investments
since he has
not been given payment? We are aware of the Land Bank bond wherein the
amount is realizable only after the lapse of 20 years. It cannot even be used
to pay
PNB or DBP loans; it can only be used to pay taxes.
Furthermore, it is also established in jurisprudence, in the case of
Commissioner of Public Highways vs. San Diego, L-30098, February 18, 1970,
that where
a property has already been thereby condemned I use word condemned
in the sense of expropriation, because that is the other term-even if there is
already an award, such an award, even by a judicial order, is not realizable
upon execution, so the poor landowner will just have to wait patiently until
such time as Congress appropriates the amount.
In the case of Commissioner of Public Highways vs. San Diego, it was
specifically stated that the judgment rendered requiring payment of the
award
determined as just compensation for the condemned property, and as a
condition precedent for the transfer of the title to the government, cannot be
realized upon execution, as the legislature must first appropriate the amount
over and above the provisional deposit.
So, my question here is: If we do not require prior payment, what happens to
the landowner now? Must he wait indefinitely? While in the meantime we
have
given priority to the landless, we have created another problem for the
erstwhile landed gentry since they cannot, in any way, use either the
property or
the supposed proceeds from the property of which they were dispossessed. If
the landless have rights, even the landed also have rights; or, as Clarence
Darrow says, Even the rich also have rights.
We are not talking about the rich here. He is already parting with his
property, and yet we go into an ephemeral, indefinite statement, subject to
the
payment of just compensation. And the question is: Where in point of time
will that compensation be made? That is why I ask that this amendment be
accepted subject to the prior payment of just compensation.
MR. BENGZON: There is no need to get excited, Madam President, because
the Committee is not insensitive to the needs of the landowners. When the
Committee
placed this paragraph or statement here, it was the sense that the landowner
would be immediately paid the just compensation. Otherwise, that
compensation
would not really be just at all.
And apropos of this, I would like to ask a question of Commissioner Ople in
the remarks that he just made that when he objected to the
constitutionalization of the State subsidy, I hope he did not mean that the
State would not in any case at all come to the rescue of the farmer where
necessary and pay the landowner in the event that the farmer is unable to
pay the just compensation.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I think I made my meaning clear that subsidies
may be necessary to make up the difference in price so that the landowner
may be
justly compensated. But, at the same time, subsidy must always be a policy
of last resort. And I think the less that is said about it, the better so that
it does not become an open invitation in the future to potential
confabulators. We know all about some of these scandals in land pricing. It is
very easy
for a government bureaucrat and a landowner in Mindanao to fix a price so
that both of them will gain at the expense of the taxpayer.
So, I am not against subsidy from the State. What I am saying is that this
should be a last resort and it is amply covered by all the existing laws. May I
remind Commissioner Bengzon that just the other day P29 billion was
allocated as government subsidy to a few government banks which are
government
financing institutions like the PNB and DBP in particular. This P29 billion is
bigger than the budget of the Ministry of National Defense, the entire Armed
Forces, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education, and I suspect
that we have to subsidize from pure taxpayers money these several
financial
institutions because we have been faced with a fait accompli. This has been
going on for some time because there is no curb on it.
And so, I agree that we subsidize the purchase of lands, but to raise it to the
level of a constitutional mandate, I would have serious scruples about
that.
FR. BERNAS: Just one statement.
MR. TADEO: Sandali lang po, Madam President. Tungkol sa pagbabayad ng
lupa, gusto ko po lamang na malaman ninyo ang panig ng magbubukid.
Sa ilalim ng RA 3844, on the rights of preemption and redemption, ang
pinagbabatayan ditong naaprubahan noong August 8, 1963 kaya naman
monumental ang
araw na ito ay reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay. Sa ilalim ng P.D.
No. 27, ang naging halaga ng lupa per hectare ay P7,000 to P8,000 plus 6
percent interest for 15 years of equal annual amortization, inabot na ng
P15,000 at huhulugan pa iyan for 15 years. Nandiyan ang Minister of
Agrarian
Reform at ano ang sinasabi niya? Nine percent lamang ang nakabayad.
Sana ang inyong mga mungkahi ay hindi magpabigat sa aming mga
magbubukid kung hindi magpapagaan. Iyon lamang ang pakiusap ko sa
kagalanggalang kong mga

kasama.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, two points only. First, after listening to the
observations of Commissioner Ople and on the understanding that it does
not
exclude the possibility of subsidy, I would gladly remove that because I also
want to avoid a situation where we make acquisition of land so easy that, in
effect, it may encourage the inefficient use of resources. So, provided that it
is understood that we are not excluding subsidy whenever it is necessary,
then I would be willing to limit the matter to the phrase just compensation.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, the Committee accepts.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Committee please allow Commissioner Bernas to
finish his statement?
FR. BERNAS: My second point is: I would object to the addition of the phrase
PRIOR COMPENSATION because even if one looks at existing jurisprudence
on
expropriation, there is no requirement of immediate, prior compensation. Just
compensation simply requires that there is an assurance that compensation
will be given. Jurisprudence has not required prior compensation. So, if at
this stage when we are trying to do something for the underprivileged, we
make
expropriation more difficult, then again we will be retrogressing.
THE PRESIDENT: The original amendment of Commissioner Treas stands.
MR. TREAS: And it has been accepted.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, the Committee has accepted the Treas amendment.
MR. TREAS: I am very grateful to the Committee.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just read the phrase as now
accepted by the Committee?

MR. MONSOD: The phrase shall read: and subject to the payment of just
compensation.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will vote on this first, and then later on, if Commissioner
Regalado insists on his amendment of inserting the word PRIOR, we will
vote
on that later.
As many as are in favor of the Treas amendment, please raise their hand.
hand.)
approved.
As many as are in favor of inserting the word PRIOR . . .
MR. REGALADO: Before we do that, Madam President, may I just explain?
MR. REGALADO: It is not correct to state that jurisprudence does not require
prior payment. Even the recent presidential decrees of the President always
require a partial deposit of a certain percentage and the rest by a
guaranteed payment. What I am after here is that, as Commissioner Bernas
has said,
there must at least be an assurance. That assurance may be in the form of a
bond which may be redeemable later. But to say that there has never been a
situation where prior payment is not required, that is not so even under the
Rules of Court as amended by presidential decrees. Even the government
itself,
upon entry on the land, has to make a deposit and the rest thereafter will be
guaranteed under the judgment of a court, but which judgment, as I have
pointed out, is not even realizable by executory process. Here is the
government coming in now. Does it mean to say that the government can
take its own
time in determining when the payment is to be made? At least
simultaneously, there should be an assurance in the form of a partial
payment in cash or other
modes of payment, and the rest thereof being guaranteed by bonds, the
issuance whereof should be simultaneous with the transfer. That is my only

purpose in
saying that there should be prior payment not payment in cash physically
but, at least, contract for payment in the form of an assurance, a guarantee
or
a promissory undertaking.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Regalado please restate his proposed
amendment?
MR. REGALADO: The proposed amendment will read: and subject to THE
PRIOR PAYMENT OF just compensation.
THE PRESIDENT: It was accepted by the Committee.
MR. REGALADO: The word PAYMENT there should be understood in the
sense that I have explained that there must at least be an assurance on the
part of the
government.
FR. BERNAS: I must say, I did misunderstand Commissioner Regalado. I read
him as requiring prior full compensation. But if the intention is merely to
maintain what obtains now, mainly, that it is enough that there is a partial
deposit as it exists under existing law, I would agree with him that that is
fine. But then I would still oppose putting it down in writing by itself because
it can be construed as requiring prior full compensation.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, Commissioner Bengzon has just told me
that anyway those remarks are already in the Record. And my remarks,
according to
Commissioner Bengzon, have been taken into account and have been
accepted in the sense in which they were intended. Then, provided it
appears in the Record
that that is the purpose of the amendment and such explanation in the
Record shall stay, I withdraw the proposed amendment to the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: If the withdrawal is based on what was supposedly agreed with
the Committee, I will still object because we will have the concept of just
compensation for the farmers and the farm workers more difficult than those
others in cases of eminent domain. So, we should not make a distinction as
to
the manner of the exercise of eminent domain or expropriations and the
manner that just compensation shall be paid. It should be uniform in all
others
because if we now allow the interpretation of Commissioner Regalado to be
the concept of just compensation, then we are making it hard for the farmers
and
the farm workers to enjoy the benefits allowed them under the agrarian
reform policy.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, as we stated earlier, the term just
compensation is as it is defined by the Supreme Court in so many cases and
which we
have accepted. So, there is no difference between just compensation as
stated here in Section 5 and just compensation as stated elsewhere. There
are no
two different interpretations.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we also state that we have accepted
the opinion or interpretation of Commissioner Bernas, that the State may, in
some
cases, have to step in to make up the difference. So, it does not necessarily
follow that these will hurt the farmers.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I would like to pose what I consider an
important question for the Committee to answer, because we have
practically
approved the whole section already. When we speak of the right of farmers,
farm workers, the landless, etc., are they obliged to exercise that right? Shall
they be compelled to exercise that right or does it mean that they are free to
use or not to use the land?
MS. NIEVA: That is right. We feel that this is their right, but this is a right that
they may waive if they prefer to do so. They are not obliged to avail
of that right. It is there.
MR. OPLE: Is that the official interpretation of the Committee?

MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: May I point out that under the Labor Code, the rights may not be
waived by the workers.
MR. BENGZON: The Labor Code has to give way to the constitutional
provision in this case.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, because the farmers may not want to exercise their right.
MR. OPLE: Because this interpretation can actually legitimize in advance
various pressures so that the farmers will not exercise the right that the
same
Constitution now purports to give them. I think it is a dangerous
interpretation, Madam President.
MR. COLAYCO: The exercise of this right by the farmers involves assumption
of obligations.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. COLAYCO: Obligations which he may either not be in a position to pay or
may not wish to assume at all. So, I agree with the conceptual thinking
expressed by the Committee.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I point out that the reason we are building
certain innovations institutionalizing peoples participation at various levels
of the agrarian reform is precisely to insure that these rights will become
effective and that they will, in fact, be exercised, especially considering the
realities in many parts of our countryside where all the social structures are
stacked up historically against the exercise of these rights. We may have it
in the law but the day-to-day social pressures will make it impossible for
many of the beneficiaries to exercise these rights or even to invoke them
unless
there are countervailing means of enabling them to exercise these rights.
And if the position of the Committee now becomes official, these rights can
be
waived because the obligations may be declined. I think we are treading on a
dangerous borderline that may be self-defeating in the end. But I leave these
all to the Committee.
The other point I want to make is whether or not the Committee accepts the
fact that the reason why in most countries land reform programs have been
successful is because of newly liberated resources from land reform; that is,
the new capital made available to expropriated landowners have been
turned
into fuel for industrialization. This was what happened in Taiwan. Within five
years of the land reform program, $2 billion (Taiwan) was released for the
industrialization of Taiwan and, therefore, there was some synergy at work in
a land reform policy. It helped the farmer; the social purposes were met but,
at the same time, the need for economic development and accelerated
industrialization were also met with the same weapon.
And so, I would like to alert the Committee with my intention to propose a
brief amendment under the same section which would try to optimize these
resources locked up in the land but which will be released as a result of the
land reform policy for industrialization.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, for the Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I think we should allow the Committee
members to eat first so they can be able to answer correctly the questions
from the
Members.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino desires to reply. Can we listen first to
Commissioner Aquino?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President. The Committee would like to clarify and
eliminate the cobwebs that are presented so far.
For clarification, the concept and the mandate of social justice in the land
reform program do not amount to a compulsion to the farm workers to
assume
obligations which they are not prepared to assume. In other words, the
compulsory effect is to compel cooperation from the landowner. The element
of
compulsion works against the landowner, but not against the farmer or the
intended beneficiary of the program. The right to waive is not recognized
when it
amounts to a waiver in favor of another. Surely, we will recognize the
freedom of choice pertaining to the worker, on whether or not he is willing to

assume the obligation.
I hope that clarifies the conceptual variance.
MR. OPLE: The interpretation is acceptable to me in the light of the freedom
of choice that we have, but the caveat I have made in the real world, I think,
is very real as well, and I will be grateful if the Committee can take that into
account.
MR. RAMA: It is already twelve thirty-seven, Madam President; I move that we
suspend the session until two-thirty.
It was 12:37 p.m.
At 2:47p.m., the session was resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, on the issue raised by Commissioner Ople,
Commissioner Nolledo would like to have two minutes to comment on that
issue of the
waiver of rights by the farmers.
I would like to make a few remarks on the statement of the Committee that
the rights under the land reform program are subject to a waiver. Madam
President, I join Commissioner Ople in his opinion that the members of the
Committee in making that statement are treading on dangerous grounds.
The land
reform program is societal in nature, that it is demanded by the imperative
need to diffuse property ownership as a matter of national and public policy.
If we adopt the general rule that the rights under the land reform program of
the government are subject to waiver, then we will open the avenue towards
circumvention thereof by the landlords in many subtle ways. So, I will agree
to the statement of the Committee that we cannot compel a tenant to

assume
obligations or to avail of the benefits afforded by the land reform program, if
that statement is given a restrictive meaning, because if the tenant does
not avail of the benefits and rights under the land reform program, then he
will forfeit his right and his share should accrue to other beneficiaries of
land reform.
So, I think, the general rule is that the benefits and rights under the land
reform program of the government should not be subject to waiver, because
the
land reform program is grounded on public policy. Otherwise we will have
what is known as unique influence. The landowners may put their minds over
the
minds of the tenants whose intelligence may not be at par with the
landowners, so they have many ways of threatening the tenants to make the
waiver for a
consideration. And these tenants are poor. They do not enjoy financial
capacity. They may be paid, for example, P5,000 to sign deeds of waiver. And
if we
adopt the statement of the Committee in this sense. I am sorry to say that
the land reform program of the government will be completely negated.
MR. LERUM: As a member of the Committee, my understanding is that the
provision does not contemplate a waiver but that the tenant may not want to
exercise
his right. That is its meaning. In other words, while we provide here that the
tenant has a right to own, but if he does not want to buy, why should we
force him to buy if, for example, he does not have the means to do so? As a
member of the Committee, that is my understanding. There is no waiver, but
the
tenant may not want to exercise his right. There is a big difference between
a waiver and not wanting to exercise a right. For example, under the
Constitution, there is a provision there that says that the workers have a
right to form unions. But there are many workers who do not want to form
unions.
We are not forcing them. They have that right but they do not only want to
exercise that right. So, my understanding, as a member of the Committee, is
that
it is not a waiver but not wanting to exercise a right granted to them.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be

recognized to amend the second sentence of Section 5.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, my amendment is an amendment by
deletion. I move that we delete the words priorities and and other
conditions as
Congress may prescribe. May I briefly explain my amendment? It is my
humble submission that the inclusion of these words will seriously impair the
agrarian reform program in our country. This will further limit the scope of
agrarian reform.
Madam President, we must remember that in 1972, President Marcos
declared the whole country covered by land reform through P.D. No. 2. A
month later, P.D.
No. 27 was issued limiting the scope of land reform only to rice and corn
lands. He later issued several decrees further impairing the agrarian reform
program. For instance, he issued P.D. No. 1942 which limits the scope of land
reform. Under that decree, lands which were newly converted to rice and
corn
are exempted from land transfer. In 1974, he issued General Order No. 47 on
Corporate Farming Program. Under this order, landowners have found a
convenient
excuse to avoid land reform by leasing their landholdings to a corporate
farm. As of 1979, about 15,000 hectares of land originally occupied by
tenants,
small settlers and small owner-cultivators have been lost to corporate farms.
Many alienated peasants were absorbed as workers in the corporate farms.
Others had simply nowhere to go. Some of these agribusiness corporations
operating in Mindanao availing of the benefits under General Order No. 47
are the
following: Tagum Agricultural Development Incorporated (TADECO), Davao
Foods Corporation, IHO Plantation Incorporated, NTC GUTHRIE Estates
Incorporated,
Sime Darby International Tire Company, Davao Agricultural Ventures under
TADECO, San Miguel Corporation and Ayala Agricultural Development
Corporation.
And, lastly, he issued LOI No. 143 which exempts landowners who are
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other branches of the
government
from inclusion in Operation Land Transfer.
It is my humble submission that if we include the words priorities and and
other conditions as Congress may prescribe, we open the floodgates to
more
restrictions and limitations thereby seriously impairing the crucial provision

in our Constitution on agrarian reform. Therefore, I humbly request that
these words be deleted.
Finally, because of these decrees and the conditions issued by Mr. Marcos,
the effect according to one article was this, and I would like to quote it:
The Marcos regime promoted the full commercialization of agriculture with
unparalled vigor justifying such thrust in the name of seemingly pro-people
programs such as land reform and agricultural modernization. Backed up by
tremendous funding from the World Bank group, the program of
modernization
sometimes dubbed as rural mobilization turned out to be a mere vehicle for
the unprecedented expansion of agri-business interest.
Mindanao and Palawan were divided, salami style, into different plantations
owned by agri-business transnationals and local corporate interests led by
Marcos cronies such as Antonio Floirendo and Eduardo Cojuangco.
In Luzon and in Visayas, the small farmers were gradually trapped inside the
huge agri-business net through the new seeds dependent on expensive
agri-business inputs, the corporate-contract growing system and the socalled interplay of market forces.
So, Madam President, on the basis of these manifestations, I suggest that we
delete the words priorities and other conditions as Congress may
prescribe.
MR. RODRIGO: May I say a few words against the proposed amendment?
Honestly, I do not feel that we in this Constitutional Commission are better
qualified or better equipped to decide on this matter and to go into the
details of this land reform than the representatives and senators who will be
elected by our people and who will compose the membership of our
Congress. I
think we are beginning to lose confidence in our officials who will be elected.
We seem to suffer from paranoia because of what Marcos did. But, Madam
President, Marcos was a dictator; he declared martial law.
THE PRESIDENT: What is happening, Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RODRIGO: There was a conversation going on beside that microphone

and I could not concentrate, Madam President. It is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought Commissioner Rodrigos freedom to speak is being
censored.
MR. RODRIGO: No, Madam President. I was just being bothered.
MR. RODRIGO: I need a little peace and quiet so that I can concentrate.
Madam President, we should not base our judgment of the coming Congress
on what President Marcos did under Amendment No. 6. He was a one-man
legislature,
and he favored his cronies because he thought he was going to be a dictator
for life. But remember that the members of our Congress will be elected by
the
people and will run for reelection, and so they have to be sensitive to the
needs and feelings of the people. I do not think we are better qualified than
they are to go into the details of this land reform program. Let us face it. We
are appointive officials. The members of Congress will be elected from all
over the Philippines. For example, I would not know how to deal with land
reform in coconut lands I have no knowledge of, or in sugarlands. I am not
acquainted with this or in Virginia tobacco-growing regions; I have no
knowledge of this. But the coming Congress will have representatives from
the
coconut region, the sugar region, the tobacco-growing region and other
regions, and they will know how to act and they will be responsible to the
people,
more responsive than we are. And so, I do not think that we should limit
unnecessarily the discretion of our Congress in implementing this land
reform.
MR. BENGZON: May the Committee now ask for a vote?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the reaction of the Committee first?
MR. BENGZON: I believe the Committee will not accept the amendment.

MR. BENGZON: The Committee is divided that is why we will submit it to a
vote, Madam President.
MR. TADEO: Ang mga sinabi ni kasamang Rene Sarmiento ay wasto naman.
Naging loopholes ang mga ito sa pagpapatupad mismo ng P.D. No. 27.
Tungkol sa subject
to such priorities, sa pananaw ng magbubukid, kung ito ay mananatili, ang
ibig sabihin ay magsisimula ito doon sa sinasabi natin kanginang equity
iyong
sobra at labis na lupain ay mapupunta roon sa maliliit na magbubukid, sa
mga landless na sinasabi natin kangina. Totoong maselang umpisahan ang
land reform
program sa small landowner. Magkakaroon talaga tayo ng problema. Kaya
ang ibig naming sabihin ay kung mananatili ang phrase na ito ay
magsisimula tayo sa
big tenanted landholdings, ill-gotten agricultural lands, tenanted agricultural
lands, idle and/or abandoned agricultural lands.
Ang tanong kasi ni Commissioner Ople noong isang araw ay, Jimmy, kung
isang malaking plantasyon na ten hectares, paano ba ito? Narito ngayon
ang sagot.
Uumpisahan natin sa malalawak at malalaking lupain, kasi nandoon talaga
iyong tinatawag nating equity magsisimula sa labis at sobra, ibibigay doon
sa
landless at hindi sa small landowner na sinasabi ni Commissioner Nolledo. Ito
iyong sa huling bahagi na sinabi ko noon pa, regardless of crops. Pero dapat
i-delete iyong other conditions, dahil magkakaroon dito ng napakalaking
loopholes.
BISHOP BACANI: I move that we vote on the amendment individually. I think
Commissioner Tadeo has a very good point. I may want to keep that phrase
subject
to such priorities because he has advocated that in the Committee for a
long time. I think that that will make for a very reasonable land reform and
the
other one may be an onerous provision and other conditions as Congress
may prescribe. And so, I would not want to have a wholesale vote on the
two of
them.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, pabor ako; kaisa ako sa mungkahi ni
Commissioner Sarmiento.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I suggest that we preserve the words
retention limits.
MR. SARMIENTO: That phrase is preserved, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but I also would move for the deletion of other conditions.
May I visualize for the body the situation that will transpire in the future
Congress?
Most of those who will be elected by legislative districts will represent landed
interests, and they will focus on these other conditions to legitimize all
manner of circumventing the heart and the spirit of Section 5. I support
Commissioner Tadeo in his position that the words other conditions would
mean
providing in advance a weapon for future adversaries of Section 5 in the
Congress in order to circumvent the entire Section 5.
SR. TAN: Madam President.
SR. TAN: Madam President, I am not referring to Mr. Marcos or to Congress; I
am referring to ourselves. Since we started this agrarian reform, I get the
impression that we are cutting more and more the rights of the farmers. First,
we removed basic, so it was only right; then, we added retention
rights; then, we removed just and progressive system; we just have just
with the understanding that there is prior payment; now we have and other
conditions as Congress may prescribe. So, I feel at this moment that this
land reform is for the benefit of the middlemen or the middle class or the
elite
class. So, I am pleading that at least that phrase other conditions be
deleted.
BISHOP BACANI: I have a motion that they be taken and voted on separately
because that will not prejudice anybody.
THE PRESIDENT: We have the proposed amendment of Commissioner

Sarmiento and that would depend on him. He was the one who made this
amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, following the Chairs instruction and
manifestation, may I move that we first vote on the deletion of the word
priorities?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think we should take this up because when we discussed
these priorities in the meeting, we have agreed that we would first
concentrate on
the big landholdings and that there would be a timetable; and only then
would we gradually go down to the smaller landholdings. That is what we
meant by
priorities. So, we are willing to put this to a vote.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, if my memory serves me right,
Commissioner Tadeo was the main proponent of this.
MR. TADEO: Paglilinaw, Madam President. Ang una kong option dito ay ang
deletion of priorities and other conditions. Ang point ko lang ay kung
mananatili pa rin ito, ang ibig sabihin ng priorities ay iyong ipinaliwanag ko
kanina. Pero ang una kong option dito ay to delete priorities para
maiwasan na ang problema.
MR . PADILLA: Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: I object to eliminating the very important phrase as Congress
may prescribe.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we will be voting on the first issue, the
elimination of the word priorities. Thereafter, we will vote on the deletion
of
the words other conditions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but Commissioner Sarmientos amendment includes the
deletion of as Congress may prescribe.
MR. SARMIENTO: No, Madam President. My amendment is the deletion of
such priorities and and other conditions. So, it will read: subject to
reasonable
retention limits as Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,

developmental or equity considerations and subject to a just compensation.
May I just inform the body, Madam President, that Article XIII, Section 12 of
the 1973 Constitution does not even contain qualifications and limitations.
It simply states:
The State shall formulate and implement an agrarian reform program aimed
at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil and achieving the
goals
enunciated in this Constitution.
What we. have is a list of restrictions and limitations under this new
Constitution, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: I understand that the Committees interpretation of other
priorities would refer to the prioritization of the application. So, it should
start first with the big landed estates and then those who would be affected
later will be the small landowners. To me, that is a very sensible limitation,
because if we do not establish the basis for a priority, Congress may also
adopt the reversed system; start first with the small landowners because
they
are not represented in Congress. So, we will have Congress attending only to
the vested interests of the big landowners. The small landowners will be
victimized now by an act of Congress which is controlled by a group with a
vested interest.
Insofar as the Article referred to by Commissioner Sarmiento is concerned,
that was even dangerous, because it was a mere declaration of a principle
that
the State shall adopt an agrarian reform program, and that is the reason why
President Marcos abused that particular declaration of principle. Now, we are
mandating Congress to especially provide for an agrarian reform program in
order that the landless will now be the owner of the property they are tilling,
and necessarily we have to take into account also the developmental and
ecological objectives of the State because of the necessity to balance
interests.
We are only giving Congress the parameters in the imposition rather than in
the exercise of a duty to pursue the objectives of land reform.
So, I would object to the proposal to delete these words.

MR. VILLEGAS: Could I also add some arguments in support of Commissioner
Davides wanting to retain the word priorities?
As already emphasized by Commissioner Rodrigo, this body is not technically
competent to determine, for example, whether or not we should first
complete
the rice and corn land reform program and then start with coconut and sugar.
There are so many questions that will have to be resolved by technical
studies
so that we can establish priorities. So, this is not only a question of big
versus small landholders but we are concerned with the various crops
planted on
these lands. Since we are interested with all crops, we cannot implement the
land reform simultaneously; we will have to set priorities. That is why, I
think, the expression subject to such priorities would be very much needed
in order that Congress will know that we are cognizant of the fact that there
are priorities even as far as crop are concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us hear first Commissioner Bernas.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I quite realize that there may be a need to
establish priorities, but if for the understanding of the meaning of priorities
we
always have to go to the debates of the Constitutional Convention, then that
is a difficult situation. In constitutional construction, the first rule is
that one looks at the meaning of the word, and it is only secondarily that one
goes to the record. As it is now, with this enumeration of so many things,
it would seem that we are constricting the power of Congress to push land
reform rather than strengthening it. Anyway, we have the clause as
Congress may
prescribe. Moreover, it says: taking into account ecological, developmental
or equity considerations and subject to a just compensation. All of these
are merely a repetition of the fact that Congress after all has plenary powers
as far as legislation is concerned. Congress can exercise and restrict. So,
I disagree with those who may say that, in effect, we are preempting the
right of Congress to establish priorities. Rather, what I say is that we must
avoid the impression that we are really almost unwillingly recognizing the
power of Congress to undertake a land reform program that impression
jumps out
from the text when one looks at the enumeration of all those limitations on
the power of Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, will the Gentleman please yield to some
questions?
FR. BERNAS: Very willingly, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to give emphasis to the words may prescribe.
Would the Gentleman agree with me that if I say subject to such priorities,
reasonable retention limits and other conditions as Congress may prescribe,
we are giving Congress a discretion to set forth priorities? The words may
prescribe would mean that Congress may not prescribe priorities after all?
FR. BERNAS: It is possible that in the judgment of Congress, what it considers
priority may be to set priorities.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is aware that the Ministry of Agrarian Reform,
as announced in todays papers or yesterdays papers, is also observing
some sort
of priorities in the sense that they would like to complete the rice and corn
land reform program before going to coconut or sugar land because we do
not
have the necessary funding to finance the entire land reform program.
FR. BERNAS: The point is, I am not denying the right of Congress to set
priorities. All I am saying is that by enumerating all these, we give the
impression that we are trying to constrict the power of Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: Based on the explanation of Commissioner Tadeo, we are not
constricting the power of Congress because Congress may begin first with
the big
landholdings and later on with medium-sized land holdings, and perhaps
later on with small landholdings unless they are exempt by Congress.
FR. BERNAS: But as I understand Commissioner Tadeo, he sees the difficulty
now and, as a matter of fact, he is willing to eliminate priorities.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that was his first choice. But later he said that his second
choice, based on his interpretation is that the word priorities may exist
here after all. I think Commissioner Bernas would like to eliminate the word
priorities because of the words: taking into account ecological,
developmental or equity considerations which will take the place of
priorities.
FR. BERNAS: Correct, Madam President. That is a sufficient guideline for

Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: Would that guideline be less emphatic than the word
priorities?
FR. BERNAS: When Congress takes into consideration ecological,
developmental or equity considerations, in fact, it will be setting the
priorities.
MR. NOLLEDO: The word priorities is more emphatic. Why do we not place
it there?
FR. BERNAS: It is excess verbiage; it gives the impression that we are more
interested in limiting Congress than in pushing Congress towards land
reform.
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so, Madam President, because of the words
may prescribe. In fact, we are giving flexibility to Congress, considering, as
stated by Commissioner Rodrigo, that we do not enjoy the mandate of the
people. We are merely appointed. Why do we not let Congress, whose
elective members
enjoy the mandate of the people, determine the set of priorities?
FR. BERNAS: I am not denying that at all. I think, Madam President, we have
sufficiently discussed this. It is a question of perceptions; we submit it to a
vote.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the issue has been amply debated. I move that
we vote on this particular amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will vote on the deletion of the words such
priorities. Is that correct, Commissioner Sarmiento?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: That is what we will do.
Sarmiento to delete the words such priorities from the second sentence of
Section 5,
their hand.)
What is the other amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO: My second amendment, Madam President, is the deletion of
the words and other conditions.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the deletion of the clause and
other conditions, also on the second sentence of Section 5, please raise
their
hand.)
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is still one proponent of an amendment
to Section 5.
May I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I have an amendment by addition on
the second sentence of Section 5. Between encourage and and, insert
the phrase
VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING. May I please give the background of my
amendment?
I think we are all convinced that the government should take the prime
responsibility in agrarian reform and that we should put more teeth in the
implementation of the program so that we can redress present imbalances
and inequities. But 10 years from now, we would like the government to
assume a
lesser role. We would like to see more initiative from the people. We would
like to encourage efforts like what is happening in Negros in terms of
voluntary land sharing. We would like to be able to help reorient the middle
class, the landlords, the employers so that we can change adversary or
confrontational strategies to cooperative and harmonious relationships.
There are actually projects like human resource development programs,

which bring
together the landlords and the planters with the sacadas. In this dialogue,
the spirit of cooperation and harmony is forged and, consequently, is
voluntarily shared. We would like to see the Ministry of Agrarian Reform
move towards creating a climate where private initiative could thrive. And
so, I
would request the Committee to consider including an amendment on
voluntary land sharing. After all, in the labor sector, they agreed on voluntary
modes of
settling disputes. This would encourage government and other nongovernment organizations to move towards this direction.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the proposed amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Between encourage and and, insert VOLUNTARY
LAND SHARING.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a new sentence?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, it is in the second sentence which will then read:
To this end, the State shall encourage VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING and
undertake the
just distribution of all agricultural lands . . .
MS. NIEVA: Does not Commissioner Rosario Braid think that that is included
in the phrase the State shall encourage? By encouraging, would that not a
necessarily include voluntary and all modes of land distribution?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It might be, Madam President, but it does not provide a
mandatory direction that would move towards this direction. Actually, I see
voluntary land sharing as the wave of the future in land reform.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, will the Commissioner please agree to an
amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Certainly.
MR. NOLLEDO: If we adopt Commissioner Rosario Braids amendment now, it
might result in a nebulous provision. Would she agree with me if we make it
as the
last sentence of Section 5: THE STATE SHALL FOSTER VOLUNTARY LAND
SHARING?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It is all right.

MR. NOLLEDO: Instead of putting it there, we should place it at the end of
Section 5 because in the amendment, we cannot begin: To this end, the
State
shall encourage. . . I think the sentence, as already amended, will be
adversely affected if we put VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING, because it might
create the
impression that what the State fosters is only voluntary land sharing, which
is not the case. However, we can supplement the provision by stating: THE
STATE SHALL FOSTER VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING as the last sentence of
Section 5. The is my amendment to the amendment.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Accepted, as long as the concept is there.
MR. NOLLEDO: I ask that the members of the Committee please consider
seriously the amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid, because the first
provision
excluding her amendment will indicate compulsory land distribution while
that of Commissioner Rosario Braid encourages only voluntary land sharing.
That is
without State intervention. Any landholder may adopt a voluntary land
sharing program, perhaps with the support of the State.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponent yield to some questions?
MR. DAVIDE: By voluntary land sharing, would it also encompass the right of
the landowners to share their landholdings?
MR. DAVIDE: If that is so, would it not defeat the objective of land reform,
because if they now voluntarily share their landholdings, it could be beyond
the reach of land reform?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, not necessarily; it can be a complementary
program.
MR. DAVIDE: It could be, but that is also a right conceded to the landowners.
So, how can we remove from them what they have already obtained by
reason of
an exercise of a right? So, if we now allow land sharing among landowners, it
will remove the right to implement the land reform over these land areas
which are subject of the land sharing.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think the future legislature could come up with
provisions that would specify the size of land that could fall under voluntary
land
sharing and other specifics. The concept is to ensure that this is also taken
up as complementary program.
MR. DAVIDE: I would have no objection if the land sharing will be by the
farmers and the farm workers, because that would amount to collective
ownership.
But, if it would apply even to the landowners whose lands may be the subject
of land reform, then that might be dangerous. We give it as an option to the
farm workers and the farmers, but not to the landowners.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think it could be stated as an option, and we should
encourage it as long as it would not prejudice the existing land reform
program.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, as an option to the beneficiaries, but not to the original
landowners. I would agree with the proponent because it would really
encourage
the establishment of cooperatives or partnerships among the beneficiaries.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: But not in favor of the original land-owners.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Could we work on an amendment that would capture
the spirit of what Commissioner Davide said?
MR. DAVIDE: If it would be an option to be granted to the beneficiaries, I
think the word COLLECTIVELY would already embody the concept. They are
entitled
to own singly or directly, on the one hand, or collectively on the other. That
would already include land sharing. That is my own perception. I do not know
the position of the Committee on the matter.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, could I just ask a few questions from the
proponent?
MS. QUESADA: The proponent said that the basis for this proposal was the
experiment that her organization tried out in Negros. Could she just
enlighten the
Committee on the background of such a proposal which has served as the
basis for this amendment on land sharing?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It has emerged out of a dire need in the province of
Negros. As a matter of fact, it is perhaps the most imaginative and most
successful
program now. They have Ed Locsin of Chito Foundation and his colleagues
and these programs are supported by the Farmers Human Resource
Development
Programs of Mrs. Magsaysay and others. This experiment is spreading in the
region and has proven worthy of replication. It has been evaluated in many
reports. Among the benefits is the establishment of a more cooperative,
harmonious environment. Having the landlord and the worker together
reduces
confrontational and adversarial relations. It is a complementary strategy to
the traditional land reform program.
MS. QUESADA: Does the proponent envision the government to come in to
this kind of an arrangement?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, by creating the climate. They have a number of
programs, primarily, training and research programs. Some of the resources
could
support the replication of these projects throughout the country. So, instead
of using the resources in just supporting the traditional land reform
programs, they can develop the pilot communities throughout the country.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the amendment has been clearly explained by
the proponent and I think it is time to vote on that amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will give the Committee a few minutes to deliberate on
this.
The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 3:33 p.m.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, the Committee has decided to put to a vote the
amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we please explain our position.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, let us hear first the Committee.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, when the Committee drafted this section,
we put the word encourage precisely not to preclude voluntary modes of
just
distribution. However, the section is very clear, that the coverage is all
agricultural lands.
I think the proposal of Commissioners Rosario Braid and Nolledo is not
precluded by the word encourage because it is possible, in order to
encourage,
that the government will give incentives to accelerate the program in its
system of priorities. So, I do not think that that is precluded, and it is
unnecessary.
So, the Committee feels that it cannot accept the amendment because it
might confuse or it might open the section to a different interpretation, and
we
want to establish the coverage to all agricultural lands.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I answer very briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. NOLLEDO: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid is
designed to really accelerate land reform program with respect to those who
would like
to comply voluntarily with it, expecting that they will be given incentives by
the government.
We have amended the amendment already, Madam President. Landowners
who are willing to adopt voluntary land sharing may be afraid of paying
capital gains
tax. They want, in a spirit of Christian brotherhood, to comply with the land
reform program of the government, even disregarding priorities that may be
set forth by Congress. But they like the government to give them incentives,
like exemption from capital gains tax.
And so, Commissioner Rosario Braid may read the proposed amendment as
amended.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: If the Committee will allow me to read the amendment,
it will be: THE GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO THOSE WHO
ADOPT VOLUNTARY
LAND SHARING. So, this will be the last sentence.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: This has been sufficiently discussed during the session and
also during the suspension of the session. So, they are ready to vote.
Rosario Braid to add a sentence to Section 5 which she has just stated,
please raise
hand.)
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for a one-word amendment, I ask that
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my amendment is with respect to the second
sentence; insert the word ARABLE between all and agricultural.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Jamir please explain?
MR. JAMIR: Yes, Madam President. I propose to insert the word ARABLE to
distinguish this kind of agricultural land from such lands as commercial and
industrial lands and residential properties because all of them fall under the
general classification of agricultural. And since the intention of the
Committee, apparently, is to limit the application of the word agricultural
here to land subject to cultivation I am adding the word ARABLE.

The words agricultural lands have already been defined repeatedly, that
they are not supposed to include commercial and industrial lands. But the
contemplation of the Committee in its definition would be limited to arable
and suitable agricultural lands.
MR. JAMIR: So it is clear that agricultural lands do not include commercial,
industrial and residential lands.
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is correct.
MR. JAMIR: With that explanation, I voluntarily withdraw my amendment,
Madam President.
MR. RAMA: In consequence of the amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento,
there is a necessary one-word addition to this Section 5. May we call on
Commissioner
Sarmiento, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What happened to the Jamir amendment?
MR. RAMA: It was withdrawn because of the explanation of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Vice-President is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: With regard to the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Jamir and the explanation of Commissioner Suarez, I would like to state that
public
lands are broadly classified into timberlands and agricultural and mineral
lands.
But under the term agricultural lands, there are subdivisions, as mentioned
by Commissioner Jamir, which may include residential, commercial and
industrial
lands. So to make it clear, especially because there is the word all to
agricultural lands, I think that the proposed amendment of putting

ARABLE
and Commissioner Suarez even added, AND SUITABLE would be
acceptable. That while it says, all agricultural lands, it is limited to
agricultural lands
that are open to farming or agricultural cultivation, etc.
So with the permission of Commissioner Jamir, I would propose that we
adopt, subject to what the Committee feels, the insertion of the word
ARABLE
because the word all was not deleted. So, in my opinion, we can either
eliminate all and just say agricultural lands, or if the word all is
retained, insert the word ARABLE.
MR. REGALADO: Just in support of what Commissioner Padilla has stated and
for symmetry and uniformity of both expression and intendment, we may
take into
account the provisions of Section 7 with respect to lands of the public
domain which also specifically state suitable to agriculture. So I think the
same
intent also applies to private lands.
Therefore, aside from the possibility of using the word arable, we can say
DISTRIBUTION OF ALL LANDS SUITABLE TO AGRICULTURE just to make it jibe
with
the same phraseology in Section 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to Commissioner Padilla?
THE PRESIDENT: Let us get the reaction first of Commissioner Padilla on the
proposed amendment.
MR. PADILLA: I have no objection to the proposal of Commissioner Regalado
because it expresses the same substance.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will Commissioner Padilla yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Let us hear Commissioner Bennagen first, as member of the

Committee.
There is a distinction in the use of agriculture in Section 7 and its use in
Section 5. The reference to the use of suitable to agriculture in Section
7 has something to do with other natural resources including lands of the
public domain, whereas in Section 5, the reference is clear, that it is to
agricultural lands. In any case, we have three criteria which have to be
taken into account in all those proceedings: ecological, developmental and
equity considerations. I think those should be taken into account.
May I just quote for the benefit of the Commissioners, the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform survey report of May 1986, defining the meaning of
agricultural
lands for land reform purposes:
Agricultural lands mean lands devoted to any growth, including but not
limited to, crop lands, salt beds, fishponds, idle lands and abandoned lands.
They
include all arable public and private lands, regardless of crop, size of
landholding and tenurial arrangement.
I hope that will satisfy the observations of Commission Padilla.
MR. PADILLA: Precisely the Commissioners definition or that definition uses
the word arable. So we are just adopting that word.
MR. SUAREZ: No. That is why it is already included in the words agricultural
lands, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: No.
MR. SUAREZ: I. am referring to the word arable.
MR. PADILLA: No, it is not included because the term agricultural lands is
very broad. Agricultural lands are only distinguished from timberlands and
mineral lands. All other lands are agricultural but definitely not all
agricultural lands are arable.
MR. SUAREZ: The problem is, if we define it with the word arable, it might
exclude the possibility of setting up, for example, a salt bed, a fishpond,
which may not, strictly speaking, be fit for cultivation or may not be arable.
That is the fear of the Committee, so we would rather that this be broadened
by just saying all agricultural lands, which would necessarily include even
salt beds and fishponds.
MR. PADILLA: In that case, if the Commissioner feels that arable does not
cover everything that should be covered by agricultural lands, except those
mentioned as residential, commercial and industrial, then we just say
agricultural lands without using the word all.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, my concern is about the more or less 600,000
kaingineros all over the country. We all know there is a program of the
Ministry of
Natural Resources granting stewardship contracts to these kaingineros that
later on can mature into ownership, so that they stop burning our forests,
destroying our watersheds and causing calamities on the lowlands,
especially through floods. Will this definition of arable lands exclude from
the
purview of agrarian reform these slash-and-burn farmers of whom we have,
according to the NEDA, no fewer than 600,000 right now?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, some of these kaingineros burn trees within
timberlands or forest lands, and these are illegal acts. It is worse if they cut
the trees because that has given rise to many adverse consequences
erosion of soil, floods and others. So if these are timberlands and not
classified as
agricultural lands available to private grants like homestead, lease, or other
methods recognized by the Public Land Law, I believe that such lands are
still, or should remain as, forests or timberlands. The trouble is that when the
trees are cut, as we have rich soil, the lands within the forest can also
be used for planting agricultural crops. But I believe that if portions of the
forests or timberlands are no longer timberlands or forest lands, then by
public authority, the Bureau of Forest Development on the one hand, and the
Bureau of Lands, on the other, should agree to declare that such portions
thereof are already available for disposition to private parties for purposes of
agriculture. But before that, I believe we have to maintain the basic
difference between mineral lands, timberlands and agricultural lands.
MR. OPLE: May I ask the Committee, therefore, what its position is-whether
under this definition of arable lands and all agricultural lands proposed to
be distributed under Section 5, that the right of the kaingineros to their own
piece of land already released by the Bureau of Forest Development will not
be prejudiced in the light of this agrarian reform program that is before the
Commission?
MR. BENNAGEN: Ang mga kaingineros ay dapat kasali sa mga beneficiaries of
agrarian reform, pero iyong bahagi ng gubat na kanilang tinatamnan, dahil
sa
kawalan ng patag na kanilang matatamnan, ay hindi kasali sa agrarian
reform. Ito ay sa dahilang by definition, according to existing laws, pag
lampas na sa
18 percent degrees slope, hindi na kasama sa agricultural land kundi sa
forest. Kaya mahalagang may distinction iyong kainginero mismo at ang
kanilang
lupang tinatamnan.
MR. OPLE: Does the Commissioner mean that above an 18 percent degrees
slope, this is no longer covered by agrarian reform?
MR. BENNAGEN: No, kasi hindi pa iyon A and D. It is not classified as
alienable and disposable. It belongs to the classification of forest land.
MR. OPLE: I hope that the Commissioners interpretation is correct. But I can
assure him right now that there are millions of hectares in the Philippines
above an 18 percent degrees slope and are considered eminently cultivable.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that is right. As a matter of fact, there was a big debate
on the issue of 18 percent, because 18 percent considers only the slope and
not the other variables that have to do with productivity.
MR. OPLE: The Committee on the Executive, therefore, should keep are open
mind about this limit, because I think it might just succeed in excluding
hundreds of thousands of hectares from agrarian reform.
MR. BENNAGEN: No. I am merely referring to the 18 percent in relation to this
concept which is being subjected to debate, partly in relation to ancestral
lands and partly in relation to the other variable, such factors of productivity
that have to be taken in consideration, not only the slope.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Concepcion be
recognized.

The term agricultural land as found in other provisions of the Constitution,
particularly those referring to the conservation of natural resources and
public utilities, apparently partakes a different meaning when used in
connection with land reform. For purposes of consistency and uniformity,
therefore,
I believe the use of the term agricultural lands as applied in this particular
provision should be made to connote the same meaning when applied to
other
provisions in the Constitution . . . the same policy as observed in the use of
the term just compensation.
Under these provisions on conservation of natural resources, all lands which
are neither timberlands nor mineral lands fall under the category of
agricultural land. The reason, according to the authorities, is that lands are
per se agricultural. However, in view of the wealth in mineral deposits as
may be found in particular areas, these areas, although rich in agriculture,
may be classified as mineral lands as determined by the national
government.
For similar reasons, forest lands are classified as timberlands, although they
have no forests but, by reason of topography, they are suitable watersheds.
These areas rich in agriculture are, however, not considered as agricultural
lands but are classified as timberlands. Ironically, some of these timberlands
are now denuded.
It is all right to have different categories of agricultural lands, but these
categories of agricultural lands under land reform were not found under the
old Constitution. Hence, the use of the term under land reform would have a
different meaning when referring to the provisions on the conservation of
natural resources, or vice versa. It would create a great confusion if the term
agricultural lands were to connote a different meaning when used in
different provisions of the Constitution.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for a final comment on the same Padilla
amendment, I ask that Commissioner Villegas be recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, just some information to anticipate really
our discussion on the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony,
because
there are a lot of relevant data on the specific classification of natural
resources:
If we will remember, in the 1973 Constitution, lands were classified into too
many categories and this gave the Marcos regime tremendous elbow room in
actually reclassifying lands, especially for the benefit of the Ministry of
Human Settlements. If we will remember also, that regime reclassified lands
into agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral,
timber or forest, and grazing lands.
Now, in the committee report on the Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony, we recommended that we go back to the 1935 classification, as
suggested
by Commissioner Concepcion, so that we just have three mineral, timber
and agricultural and then we add a fourth one, national parks, which is the
innovation of this Constitution after a lot of public hearings where we got this
recommendation. We will discuss this at the opportune time. So we are
suggesting four classifications now, the three that appeared in the 1935
Constitution plus national parks.
I agree that it may not be necessary to add the word ARABLE because I
think there is already a jurisprudential definition of agricultural. And since
this is something that is subject more to further determination of the
legislature because, as already mentioned by Commissioner Bennagen, there
are all
sorts of technological changes that may render certain types of steep
mountains arable in the future. And as this body probably knows, there are a
lot of
industrial tree plantations that are much more agricultural really than
timberland. There are a lot of fast-growing trees that are being grown in the
same
way as we grow sugar cane so the distinction between timberland and
agricultural land is becoming thinner and thinner. That is why in the
committee report
on the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony, we are
recommending a new provision that the legislature or Congress should fix
the definition of
forest lands which should not be diminished there after, but the fixing
would be subject to a lot of studies because Congress would have to get
experts
to determine exactly what is timberland and what is agricultural land.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the proponent of the amendment insists on a

vote on his amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: It is Commissioner Padilla now because Commissioner Jamir
withdrew his amendment. How does Commissioner Padillas amendment
read?
MR. PADILLA: Delete the word all so that the line would read just
distribution of agricultural lands.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have any reaction from the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we do not accept the amendment.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee does not accept the amendment. So let us
proceed to vote then.
Those in favor of deleting the word all before the word agricultural will
Those against will please raise their hand. (Several Member raised their
hand.)
THE PRESIDENT: Ipinakikiusap lamang sa aming mga bisita dito sa session
hall na huwag pumalakpak o gumawa ng anumang reaksyon kung may
botohan o talakayan
dito sa Komisyon.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, before we move over to the next section, I ask
that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized for a perfecting amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move for the insertion of the word AND
between priorities and reasonable. The reason for this is the
consequence of
our decision to delete the words and other conditions.
THE PRESIDENT: So the phrase reads such priorities AND reasonable.
Is this accepted by the Committee?

MS. NIEVA: Yes, Madam President, we accept it.
On Section 6, we notice the incorporation of the words research and
development as an amendment to the original proposal. I am for its deletion
because
re search and development, if development is related to research, would
already be included in the word technology.
MR. BENGZON: Is Commissioner Davide talking of Section 6?
MR. DAVIDE: Section 6, page 2.
MR. BENGZON: Can we vote on Section 5 first? Madam President, we have
not voted on the whole of Section 5. If there are no more amendments to
Section 5, we
request that the body vote on the whole section, as amended.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, I seek clarification on this very crucial part of
Section 5. Ito pong just compensation, kung ang kahulugan nito ay hindi
ang
reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay under the right of preemption and
right of redemption, I would like to cite the case of Valdez vs. Balmocena,
CAGR
No. 01487-R, October 7, 1976. Dito po ay ipinaliwanag ang right of
redemption, na kapag ibinenta ng panginoong may-ari ng lupa ang lupang
sinasaka ng
magbubukid sa iba, may karapatan ang magbubukid na maghabol at ang
babayaran ng magbubukid ay hindi batay sa usapan ng vendee at ng
panginoong may-ari ng
lupa kundi batay sa reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay. Kung hindi po
ito ang kahulugan ng just compensation, ay binabawi ko po ang boto ko.
MR. BENNAGEN: Ang pagkaunawa natin dito sa just compensation,

isinasaalang-alang dito ang kakayahan ng magsasaka at kung hindi niya ito
makakaya, dito
papasok ang pamahalaan. Kaya, batay din ito sa affordable cost na
makakaya ng magbubukid o sa kanyang limitasyon. Iyon ang pagkaunawa
natin kanginang
umaga. Maaari ring market value, kaya ang primary consideration ay ang
kakayahan ng magsasaka. Kung ano ang hindi kaya ng magbubukid,
dadagdagan ng
pamahalaan. That is our understanding. Kailangang just din ang kabayaran
doon sa pagmumulan ng lupa.
MR. TADEO: That is only a clarification.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may we vote now on the whole section?
MR. RODRIGO: May I request that the whole section be read?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, may we read the whole section.
THE PRESIDENT: Please read the whole section.
BISHOP BACANI: Just a moment, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Do we understand that there has been an addition of
meaning or a change of meaning which was explained this morning? I ask
this because
think it was insisted that just compensation is the compensation paid to
the landowner.
MS. NIEVA: To the landowner. Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: And that is the prime consideration there?
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Whether it will then be subsidized by the government, I
hope that that is not lost.
MR. BENGZON: No, it is not lost, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: Section 5 now reads as follows: The State shall by law undertake
an agrarian reform program founded on the basic right of farmers and
regular
farm workers; who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they
till or, in the case of other farm workers, receive a just share of the
fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as Congress may prescribe, taking into account
ecological, developmental or equity considerations and subject to the
payment of
just compensations. The State shall respect the rights of small landowners in
determining retention limits. The State shall further provide incentives for
voluntary land-sharing.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just a clarification. Was there a comma
after farm workers so that the phrase who are landless will refer to both
regular farm workers and farmers?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I am sorry I did not mention the comma.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Chairman of the Committee please read again the
last two sentences.
MS. NIEVA: The State shall respect the rights of small landowners in
determining retention limits. The State shall further provide incentives for
voluntary land-sharing.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of this proposed amendment to Section 5, as
read by the honorable Chairman, will please raise their hand. (Several
Members
raised their hand.)
The results show 36 votes in favor and none against; the amendment to
Section 5 is approved.
to amend Section 6.
The amendment on Section 6 would only be to delete the newly incorporated

words research and development on the second from the last line, the
reason
being that this is already included in the word technology. We cannot have
technology without research and its development.
MR. BENNAGEN: How about deleting and development only?
MR. DAVIDE: No, I propose to delete research and development.
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me explain why I insist that research should be here.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen may proceed.
In various studies on agrarian reform, it has been shown that many
agricultural practices are location-specific; meaning, that agricultural
practices in
the United States, in China, or in India, are not necessarily transferable to
Philippine conditions. And even within Philippine conditions, specifically
because of the great variability of ecological conditions, one cannot easily
generalize, and, therefore, it is necessary to have site-specific or
location-specific research and development. I am willing to have and
development be stricken off, but not research.
MR. DAVIDE: I will agree, in view of the explanation. So, only the words and
development should be stricken off.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I be recognized. This is an
amendment to Commissioner Davides.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I am glad that research is retained, but I wonder if we
could include TRAINING instead of development the deletion of which I
accept, so that the phrase reads: research and TRAINING because
training is very important.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I believe that training is already included in
technology because how can the government transfer technology to the
farmers and the farm workers without the necessary training for said
technology? So it is inherent in technology.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner satisfied?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I withdraw then with that explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment?
MS. NIEVA: We accept the amendment of Commissioner Davide deleting the
words and development, so the phrase reads: appropriate technology and
research.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide which has been accepted by the Committee?
Is there any objection to this proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair
hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for another amendment to the same section, I
ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, on the same section, I propose to
delete and marketing assistance and to substitute it with the words
SUPPORT
SERVICES, so that it will read: and adequate financial, production SUPPORT
SERVICES. The reason is that there are other important services; namely,
post
harvest technology and extension services. If we include marketing, then we
might as well include all the other support services. Post harvest technology,
if I may explain, includes storage, abattoirs and processing systems. And
these are different from marketing systems, so I propose to delete and
marketing
assistance and in lieu thereof, insert SUPPORT SERVICES after the word
production.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we accept the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to introduce an amendment to the amendment by
retaining and marketing assistance and adding what have been stated,
AND OTHER
SUPPORT SERVICES. So, after production, delete- the word and and after
assistance, add the following: AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to Commissioner Rosario Braid?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It is accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: If it is acceptable to Commissioner Rosario Braid, the Committee
accepts.
Commissioners Rosario Braid and Davide which has been accepted by the
Committee?
MR. RAMA: On the same section, Madam President, I ask that Commissioner
Rigos be recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I propose a minor amendment in the first
portion of the sentence which says:
The State shall recognize the right of farmers and farm workers, of
cooperatives and other independent farmers organization and land
owners . . .
by placing the word landowners immediately after farm workers so that
we refer to people first farmers, farm workers and landowners then
followed
by cooperatives and organizations which are associations. So we just put
them together.
MR. RAMA: For the last amendment to Section 6, I ask that Commissioner
Davide be recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: This is a very minor amendment, Madam President. After the
word organization on the third line, add S and transpose the apostrophe,
farmers to after s, so it should be farmers ORGANIZATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, it is just a small spelling error, a perfecting amendment.
MR. RAMA: There are no more proponents to amend Section 6, Madam
President, so I ask that we take a vote on the whole Section 6.
MS. NIEVA: Section 6 reads: The State shall recognize the right of farmers,
farmworkers and landowners, of cooperatives and other independent
farmers
organizations to participate in the planning, organizing, and management of
the program and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate
technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and
other support services.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be marketing assistance.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, I am sorry. It is marketing assistance, and other support
services.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Can we not substitute organizing with ORGANIZATION?
I think the phrase should be the planning, ORGANIZATION. . .
MR. BENGZON: We accept, yes.
MS. NIEVA: We accept.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to Section 6? (Silence) The Chair
MR. RAMA: On Section 7, Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be
recognized.

On behalf of Commissioner Nolledo and myself, may we propose an
amendment in the form of an additional sentence which can be indented as
a new paragraph
under Section 7, which reads as follows: THE STATE MAY RESETTLE THE
LANDLESS WORKERS IN ITS OWN AGRICULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED TO THE
BENEFICIARIES ACCORDING TO THEIR QUALIFICATIONS.
The reason for this amendment, Madam President, is that the State itself
may want to establish model estates for agrarian reform and, as a matter of
fact,
this was the preeminent form of agrarian reform initiated by President
Magsaysay in 1953 when the NARRA Settlement was established in Palawan
and earlier
when the EDCOR was established in Mindanao. This will complement the first
part of Section 7 which deals with the lands of the public domain suitable to
agriculture under lease or concession, but in this case it is the State that sets
up the model agrarian reform estates at its own expense just like in the
case of the two examples that I cited.
May I point out that in Indonesia this is the principal mode of land reform
where approximately five million people have been transferred from
overcrowded
Java to the outer islands of Indonesia through what they call a transmigration
policy which, of course, is supported by irrigation, one year of free
subsistence, donation of all the tools required for cultivation, and amenities
like schools and clinics.
So it is in that spirit that we propose this amendment, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: May we ask Commissioner Ople whether the term WORKERS
would include the landless, farmers or industrial workers.
MR. OPLE: I am referring mainly, in this instance, to the landless agricultural
workers who do not even till their own plot of land and who, according to
the statistics of the NEDA, are now far in excess, numerically speaking, of
those engaged in tenancy or sharecropping. And that is why as the arable
land
keeps stable and the population keeps exploding, we have this phenomenon
of millions of landless rural workers who can no longer be accommodated in
the
farms and, therefore, whose prospect, unlike that of the tenant farmers and
the regular farm workers, for ever acquiring land is nil and whose prospect
for
finding jobs outside of agriculture is also probably nil. And that is the reason
why this is just an additional permissive mandate to the State to
undertake its own agricultural estates where the landless workers may be
given the opportunity to engage in productive work and ultimately own the
lands
that compromise the governments own agricultural estates.
We just would like to clear up the definition of the word WORKERS from
Commissioner Ople because it might give the impression that it refers to
industrial or commercial workers. But I understand from his statement that
he is limiting the word workers to farmers and regular farm workers.
MR. SUAREZ: Maybe we can change the word WORKERS to FARMERS AND
REGULAR FARMWORKERS.
MR. OPLE: I would have no objection to that, although that is a longer term.
MR. SUAREZ: And then after the word DISTRIBUTED, would the
Commissioner have any objection to inserting the phrase TO THEM IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW?
MR. OPLE: I want to thank Commissioner Suarez for a major improvement on
the language of the proposed amendment.
As the proposal would stand, it reads: THE STATE MAY RESETTLE THE
LANDLESS FARMERS AND REGULAR FARM-WORKERS IN ITS OWN
AGRICULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President, I accept.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank you.

Commissioner Ople as revised by the Committee?
MR. OPLE: Commissioners Ople and Nolledo, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Why always insist on REGULAR FARMWORKERS? Precisely,
those who are not regularly employed may be the better beneficiaries or
recipients of
this State-organized agricultural settlements.
MR. OPLE: I support the Padilla amendment to my amendment with the
permission of the Committee.
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee would have no objection to the deletion of the
descriptive word REGULAR as applied to farm workers, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Suarez read the amendment please.
MR. SUAREZ: It reads: THE STATE MAY RESETTLE THE LANDLESS FARMERS
AND FARM-WORKERS IN ITS OWN AGRICULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment to
Section 7?
MR. BENNAGEN: May we ask Commissioner Ople one more question? Is the
idea of the State having own agricultural estates for government to set up
manage
these agricultural estates?
MR. OPLE: Yes, this will be subject to the provisions of Section 6 in which
organizations of farmers, workers and landowners in this case, the
government
is the landowner cooperatives and other independent organizations shall

participate in the organization, management and direction of the program.
MR. BENNAGEN: What would be the relationship of the workers to the State
and to the agricultural estate? They will just be employed agricultural work.
MR. OPLE: No. They are resettled there and the term of resettlement is clear
in the legal literature. This means that they are potential owners of these
lands upon meeting certain standards as may be provided by law.
MR. BENNAGEN: In other words, at some future time, these agricultural
estates will be dissolved as State agricultural estates?
MR. OPLE: Yes, and they may, of course, establish their own voluntary system
of associating with each other through a cooperative, if they like, or some
other mode.
MR. BENNAGEN: Already independent of the State?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: I thank Commissioner Ople.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, could I volunteer an information just to
concretize the proposal of Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas may please proceed.
MR. VILLEGAS: Malaysia has a very successful model that implements the
concept of Minister Ople through a government corporation called FELDA,
Federal Land
Development Corporation which actually distributed small plots of land to
farmers. And through a nucleus estate which the government put up that
would
process, for example, rubber, they helped thousands of small holders of
rubber trees to actually productive in the growing of this very important crop.
And
little by little, the small holders learned how to get together on their own and
form cooperatives. This Malaysian model is something that a lot of
Filipinos are looking at, not only for the government to implement but also
for private sector groups to implement.
MR. LERUM: I am thinking about industrial workers who lost their

employment but want to go back to the province and engage in farming. Are
we not
discriminating against them if we limit the benefit only to farm workers?
MR. OPLE: I am inclined to support Commissioner Lerums intervention for
laid-off industrial workers who want to go back home and who in the
meantime may
have no land to go back to.
So, I do not know if the Committee, at this point in time, would be able to
accommodate.
MS. QUESADA: Our understanding is that when these workers go to the
provinces and end up becoming workers in these agricultural estates, then
they become
farm workers. So, they would be entitled under this provision.
MR. OPLE: So, they are embraced within the scope of workers here?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, as long as that is on record, I am satisfied.
MS. NIEVA: Therefore. the entire additional paragraph of Section 7 reads as
follows: THE STATE MAY RESETTLE LANDLESS FARMERS AND FARMWORKERS IN ITS OWN
AGRICULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Villegas want to say something?
MR. VILLEGAS: Before we vote on Section 7, may I get some clarification
about the phrase in the disposition of other natural resources?
As we had already discussed previously, there are only three types of public
land mineral, timber or agricultural. Of course, if we decide on the
national parks later on, it would be the fourth.
MR. BENGZON: We are not yet on that; we are still voting on the Ople-Nolledo
amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular amendment of

Commissioners Ople and Nolledo which has been accepted by the
Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized
to make an amendment to the same section.
MR. ROMULO: Actually I had an anterior amendment, but I did not want to
disturb Commissioner Ople.
MR. ROMULO: On line 2, I propose that between the words reform and
whenever, insert the phrase OR STEWARDSHIP to enable the State to
dispose of lands
of the public domain under the concept of stewardship.
MS. NIEVA: So, after agrarian reform the proposal is to insert OR
STEWARDSHIP.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, so the line would read: The State shall apply the
principles of agrarian reform OR STEWARDSHIP whenever applicable in
accordance with law
. . .
MR. TINGSON: I would like to support this amendment, because the word
STEWARDSHIP must be applied to the concept of landownership. We are
not really the
owners of land. When we really analyze it, Madam President, it is God who
owns the land. We are only but stewards, so I would like to support the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Romulo explain?
MR. ROMULO: I have explained it, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Villegas have any remark on this?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Madam President, may I clarify this phrase: disposition
of other natural resources. I think only agricultural lands are alienable in
the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony. Timberlands and mineral
lands are not alienable. What is really the objective of applying agrarian
reform to disposition of other natural resources?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the word disposition there does not mean
transfer of title. It may mean, for example, in the case of forest areas, that in
the giving of concessions, the people in the community around the forest
should be given some preferential attention or treatment. So, that does not
necessarily mean transfer of title, and the addition of the words OR
STEWARDSHIP probably clarifies it even more.
MR. VILLEGAS: And so, even in mineral lands the Committee is also thinking
of small-scale mining?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, because as the Commissioner knows, that is also included
in the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony where we talk about
small-scale utilization of natural resources.
MR. VILLEGAS: As long as the word disposition is legally understood not to
be synonymous with alienation, then I think it is clear.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be recognized for an amendment
to the same section.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I just would like to add the words OR
UTILIZATION after disposition to make it clear that it really refers more to
the use
of other natural resources since only public lands are alienable.
THE-PRESIDENT: The Committee accepts.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just explain something. While the
word disposition does not necessarily mean transferring legal title, we do
envisage
situations where land which is of the public domain because we say
including lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture becomes
available for
disposition when the State changes the classification. So, we accept the
amendment OR UTILIZATION.
BISHOP BACANI: So that I may vote intelligently, may I just ask
Commissioner Romulo to explain what he means by the principle of
stewardship, because from
the philosophical and theological point of view I find that very laudable;
however, I do not know whether there is a legal meaning to it which may be
different from that.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President, I propose it in the legal sense actually;
that is, that the individual would have free use or free occupancy but he
would
not be given a legal title to the land. That is what we call in law as
usufructuary.
MR. BENNAGEN: Nais ko lang idagdag dito iyong nabanggit na ni
Commissioner Ople kangina tungkol sa kaso ng mga kainginero. Mahalaga
kasi sa mga lugar na
classified as forests pero puwedeng agricultural kasama dito iyong tree
plantations na nabanggit ni Commissioner Villegas na maaari nilang
gamitin ang
lupa kasama ang principles of agrarian reform; meaning, mayroong
complementary structures and services that would support the use of forest
lands for
agricultural purposes. Ito iyong agro-foresty na tinatawag. Kaya ang punto
dito, bagaman hindi ibibigay sa kanila ang titulo ng lupa, magagamit naman
nila
ang lupa for a certain period of time subject to renewal. In practice, umaabot
ito ng 25 years o 50 years pero the title is never given to them; ito ay
kanilang kontrata sa pamahalaan but subject to the principles of agrarian
reform. Ang ibig nitong sabihin, susuportahan ito ng pamahalaan sapagkat
sa
karanasan ng integrated social forestry program, kung walang suporta iyan
batay dito sa principles of agrarian reform, lalong nasisira ang gubat at hindi
rin umaasenso ang kabuhayan ng kainginero.
MR. RAMA: Since there are no more amendments. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we proceed first to vote on the Romulo and Azcuna
amendments as incorporated by the Committee? Will the Committee please
read the
first three lines?
MS. NIEVA: The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform OR
STEWARDSHIP whenever applicable in accordance with law IN the disposition
OR
UTILIZATION of other natural resources . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote on those amendments first.
Is there any objection?
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote, in Section 5, the State shall undertake an
agrarian reform program to enable the farmers and regular farm workers to
own the
land. As a matter of fact, this was the subject of my interpellation-ownership
of the land.
Now, in this Section 7, we use STEWARDSHIP but we also say we apply the
principles of agrarian reform. Does this mean that the words to own also
apply
to Section 7?
MS. NIEVA: I think that was explained, that in many instances where the
lands belong to the government and may not be alienated, they will not
receive the
title. As it was stated here as an example, the 600,000 kaingineros of
whom Commissioner Ople was very concerned can take advantage of the
utilization
of these natural resources, receiving the support of the State. And this is
what we mean by the principles of agrarian reform that the State shall
give
them all the support and the assistance that they would need to be
successful in their utilization of these natural resources, but they will not
receive
the titles.
MR. RODRIGO: Not to own?
MS. NIEVA: Not to own.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I would like to ask Commissioner Ople

because he said that in then case of what we call government estates,
eventually these
will be partitioned so that the farmers can own them.
MR. OPLE: This will lead directly to ownership, Madam President.
In the case of the agricultural estates established by the government itself
and where the government is the landowner, there is no obstacle to the
distribution of the lands on an ownership basis. In the case of the
kaingineros, I think what prevents the conferment of titles of ownership is
precisely
certain classifications of lands. So that if ownership cannot yet be vested
because of these problems of classifications, then a stewardship contract is
issued to them which, I understand from the Ministry of Natural Resources,
can even be negotiable in terms of a collateral in a bank. It is that important
a piece of paper, not yet equivalent to ownership, but it vests certain
attributes of ownership to the kaingineros who have been issued this
stewardship
contract.
I think this is related to the usufruct right that Commissioner Romulo had
earlier talked about, which means that under conditions of usufruct one is,
for
all purposes, the owner except that there might be no infinity built into his
ownership. Most usufruct would terminate in 50 years. In Europe usually it is
99 years. And so these are all the attributes of ownership except in
perpetuity.
MR. RODRIGO: There is no such thing as infinite in this world. So when I say,
I am the owner, it is understood that it is not infinite because I am not
infinite; not even this world is infinite.
What I would like to clarify is this: What is the underlying philosophy of
Section 7? Can the beneficiaries of Section 7 own, or may they only be
stewards
of the land? I ask so because in Section 5, it is ownership.
MR. OPLE: The Committee can speak for itself, but before I resume my seat,
may I just say that as soon as the conditions ripen into ownership, then
nothing
should prevent vesting the full ownership in the holder of a stewardship or a
usufruct contract.
MR. RODRIGO: That is why I come back to my question: What is the

underlying philosophy of Section 7? Would the farmers under this section
eventually own
the land, or would they be only stewards of the land?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, it would depend on the natural resources
we are talking about.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us say disposable public land.
MR. MONSOD: If it is an alienable and disposable public land, then they may
acquire title. As a matter of fact, in applying the principles of agrarian
reform, the State should start with its own backyard, which are alienable and
disposable public lands suitable to agriculture.
MR. RODRIGO: In this Section 7, is the philosophy of land to the tiller also
applicable as it is applicable in Section 5? In Section 5, the heirs or the
children of the owner may not inherit the land; the owner may not dispose of
nor sell the land. Is that true also of Section 7?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, it would apply, but it would be applied a little differently if
we were talking about forest land. For example, where the land itself is
not alienable but one has a concession to utilize the forest, then the laws on
forestry would apply, except that there would be preferential treatment of
the communities.
MR. RODRIGO: I am speaking of disposable, alienable public land.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, it would apply.
MR. RODRIGO: So the same limitations on the ownership of the farmers and
farm workers under Section 5 would apply to the beneficiaries of Section 7?
MR. MONSOD: That is right, that is precisely why we say the principles of
agrarian reform.
MR. RODRIGO: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we just want to emphasize that in Section
7, the coverage is wider because there is mention here of other natural
resources. And so, in the case of timberlands and mineral lands, the
principles of agrarian reform by way of ownership and grant of title will not
apply.
That is where the principle of stewardship will apply.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor the proposed amendments of Commissioners
Romulo and Azcuna as incorporated by the Committee will please raise their
hand.
The results show 31 votes in favor and none against; the two amendments
are approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask the Chairman of the committee to
read the entire section as amended.
MS. NIEVA: Section 7 shall now read as follows: The State shall apply the
principles of agrarian reform or stewardship whenever applicable in
accordance
with law in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including
lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture under lease or
concession, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers and the
rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farm-workers in its own
agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner
provided by law.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, for clarification. Prior rights refer to previous
rights of indigenous cultural communities and settlers over the land on which
they live and cultivate or use for livelihood.
MR. BENGZON: That is among others, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So are we ready now to vote?
Is there any objection to Section 7, as amended? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; Section 7, as amended, is approved.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair calls for a suspension of the session for a few
minutes.
It was 4:57 p.m.
At 5:29 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Florenz D.
Regalado presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized to present amendments to Section 8.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: This amendment is a joint amendment of Commissioner
Teodulo Natividad, myself and the honorable Presiding Officer.
On Section 8, line 1, delete the word preferential between the words the
and rights; insert the word PREFERENTIAL between the words the and
use
on line 3; and insert the word COMMUNAL between the words of and
marine on the same line, so that the sentence will read: The State shall
protect the
rights of marginal fishermen and local communities to the PREFERENTIAL use
of COMMUNAL marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore,
particularly
municipal fishing grounds
The other sentence will be amended correspondingly so that the section will
not be too long.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Natividad is
recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will the distinguished proponent please yield to some
questions?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, willingly.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The phrase direct or communal was deleted by the

Committee. I am with the Commissioner in this amendment to retain
communal because it
might give rise to an impression that communal fishing grounds as we
know it now and as should be reserved in the future by future Congresses
are being
frowned upon. I welcome the use of the words communal fishing grounds
because this is the only way we can give preferential rights to marginal or
poor
fishermen. Ang ibig ko pong sabihin, ang mahihirap na mangingisda, katulad
din ng mga mahihirap na magsasaka, ay isang kahig, isang tuka lamang.
Hindi po
nila kayang mabuhay kung sasabihin nating mangisda sila sa dakong ilalim
ng karagatan, sapagkat wala silang kasangkapan o walang bangka.
Therefore, even if
we place in the Constitution the word preferential, it is a hollow word if we
do not reserve an area for them in terms of communal fishing grounds where
those in the same situation in life iyong mahihirap na ang tanging
kasangkapan ay iyon lamang generator, isang bangka at isang maliit na
lambat can
earn their livelihood.
The other thing I would like to note in this amendment, in which I am joining
the Commissioner, is the matter of municipal fishing grounds. Doon po sa
lalawigan ng Bulakan ay mayroong tinatawag na propyos propyos ng
Hagonoy propyos ng Paombong, atbp. Ang ibig sabihin ng propyos ay
municipal fishponds or
municipal fishing grounds, which are properties of the municipality since time
immemorial. I think we should use another term to avoid confusion. And
these
fishponds are not communal fishing grounds. Sa communal fishing grounds,
basta mababaw na pook ng dagat, lahat ay makapanghuhuli ng hipon at
lahat ng uri
ng maliliit na isda. Hindi bawal sa sinuman ang pumasok diyan, bastat hindi
lang gagamit ng heavy equipment. Iyan ang concept ng communal fishing
grounds.
So I would suggest that municipal fishing grounds should have another
name because they might be confused with the municipal fishponds that we
have in
many provinces. Sa mga propyos, hindi maaaring manghuli ng isda because
these are fishponds being leased or operated by municipalities for added
income of
the municipalities. And nobody can fish there because these are all encircled
by dikes. Therefore, they should not be confused with these municipal fishing
grounds in this article which, to my mind, are communal fishing grounds.
I also agree with the use of the word conservation because I believe that
the State should not only develop these areas but should also conserve or
protect them from foreign encroachment and from encroachment of rich
fishermen or fishpond owners. Sapagkat sa aktuwal na situwasyon,
maraming lalawigan
ang dapat nating tingnan. The borders of communal fishing grounds are
fishponds. And the fishpond owners, by operation of law, extend the
boundaries of
their fish ponds. Ang tawag namin dito sa Bulacan ay naglalabas ng
palaisdaan, naglalagay ng pilapil upang sakupin ang palaisdaang bayan.
That is why I
would like to inject into this debate that the conservation of these communal
fishponds should include their protection from encroachment of rich
fishermen
and fishpond owners which has been the root of many historic struggles
between the rich and the poor, in this case, between the rich fishermen and
the poor
fishermen. Kaya kung tayo man ay nagpapakita ngayon ng pagmamahal sa
mga magsasaka, nais nating sabihing kasama sa ating pagmamalasakit dito
ang mahihirap
na mangingisda.
Salamat po.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to inquire from the proponent certain matters.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the use of the word COMMUNAL as proposed by the
Commissioner now qualify marine and fishing resources?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is correct.
MR. DAVIDE: So, may Congress set aside certain areas as communal marine
and fishing areas?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No. Pursuant to Commissioner Davides explanation
yesterday, Congress may not do that because all these lakes are communal.
MR. DAVIDE: That was precisely the idea of my earlier proposal to delete the
words the direct or communal use. Now, under the Commissioners
proposal, he
would in effect allow Congress to define what area within the marine and
fishing resource area should be considered communal, not the entire area
itself.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On the contrary, it will prevent Congress from doing what
the Commissioner envisions.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, under this proposal, the meaning would be that
all marine and fishing resources must be communal.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is the meaning, I would have no objection to it. The
purpose of my inquiry was precisely to prohibit Congress from defining a
particular area as the only communal area.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What is the position of the
Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we just ask the proponent a
MR. SUAREZ: Is our understanding correct that the communal character
would be applied to fishing grounds and resources and not to their use?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, the use is preferential. In the light of the query
yesterday of Commissioner Ople whether, for example, fishermen from
Bulacan going
to Quezon will be denied the use of the communal fishing grounds, the
answer of the Committee was that that was not the intention, but with
preferential
right to marginal fishermen and local communities.
MR. SUAREZ: Because as originally proposed by the Committee, it would be
communal use rather than communal marine and fishing resources. But the
intention
is clear here that what the Commissioner wants to be owned by the
community are the fishing resources and grounds?

MR. SUAREZ: And the use will be preferential in character for the marginal
fishermen?
MR DE LOS REYES: Yes.
MR SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: May I just ask the proponent a question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Did I hear the Commissioner correctly when he said that all
marine and fishing resources are now classified as communal? Just an
amplification
of the question of Commissioner Davide: Does this Article contemplate that
all marine and fishing resources are now communal, or does this say that the
preferential use shall be only to those considered communal marine and
fishing resources?
MR DE LOS REYES: It is the preferential use of communal and fishing
resources.
MR. MONSOD: Are there marine and fishing resources that are communal?
MR. DE LOS REYES: None, because communal qualifies marine and fishing
resources.
MR. MONSOD: What about the fishponds, what do we call those?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The fishponds not situated in lakes and rivers are
different; these are already private property. That is precisely the intention of
the
amendment, to do away with fish pens situated within lakes and rivers which
properly belong to the people and to the State. Under land reform, we are
taking away private property and giving it to the poor, but with regard to
lakes and rivers, we are doing the reverse. The lakes which are communal in
nature are instead being given or allocated to the rich to the exclusion of the
marginal fishermen.
MR. MONSOD: Is the Commissioner saying that with this definition, fish pens
would no longer be allowed?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That will be the ultimate effect in communal lakes.
MR. MONSOD: What about Laguna de Bay? In specific terms, would this
Article now prohibit the granting of licenses to have fish pens in Laguna de
Bay?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is the intent of the amendment, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask the proponent a questions?
MR. DE CASTRO: What does the Commissioner mean by marginal?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Marginal is not my term; that is the definition of the
Committee and, therefore, the Committee should answer that question.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I know the meaning of marginal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Let us hear from the Committee.
MS. NIEVA: By marginal I think we are referring to the small fishermen.
MR. DE CASTRO: What does the Committee mean by small fishermen?
MS. NIEVA: Those who do not operate large fishing fleets and so forth; those
who are barely eking out their living from fishing.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just volunteer this information
or data on small fishermen.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Let us hear from Commissioner
Sarmiento.
MR. SARMIENTO: According to IBON facts and figures, the Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources estimates that there are 550,731 municipal
fishermen.
They are distinguished by the fact that they operate in coastal waters less
than seven fathoms deep, using motorized or nonmotorized bancas weighing
less
than three gross tons. Because of the seasonality of fish, municipal
fishermen operate only on an average of five hours a day, twenty days a
month and six

months a year.
May I ask another question. Does that mean that if one operates a banca
weighing less than three tons, he is a small fisherman?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, according to this information.
MR. DE CASTRO: In Laguna de Bay, fishermen, including big fishpen
operators, use bancas weighing less than a ton, say, 16 horsepower. Are they
small or
marginal fishermen?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What does the Committee say?
MS. NIEVA: May we have the question again?
MR. DE CASTRO: From the definition of Honorable Sarmiento, he said that the
fishermans banca must weigh more than three tons for him to be classified
as a
big fishermen. But in Laguna de Bay, big fish pen operators have a banca
less than one ton using the Briggs and Stratton 16 horsepower, a small
engine. Is
he classified a small fisherman?
MR. MONSOD: By the Gentlemans own definition, he would not be a small
fisherman because the classification is not only on the size of the banca.
MR. DE CASTRO: What is the other classification?
MR. MONSOD: Apparently, there are other considerations such as the size of
the holding and the capitalization required. These are all the considered
criteria for determining if a fisherman is small or big.
MR. DE CASTRO: That is not the definition offered by the Honorable
Sarmiento. Does the Gentleman mean to say that his definition is not the
definition of
the small fisherman?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I give this additional in formation because the

municipal fishermen were classified into two sectors and I think marginal
fishermen will
fall under this second sector. The first sector includes those who use
motorized bancas and fishing gears; the second includes those who use only
wooden
bancas and who are equipped only with hook and line and/or small nets. The
Ministry of Natural Resources estimates that there are 600,000 of the latter
sector called subsistence fishermen. I think these are the marginal
fishermen.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, if a fisherman uses a wooden banca with a smallpowered motor, principally perhaps the Briggs and Stratton 16 horsepower,
and uses hook
and line.
MR. SARMIENTO: Equipped with hook and line and/or small nets.
MR. DE CASTRO: How small will that net be?
There are what we call small fishermen in Laguna de Bay using nets of about
5 kilometers long known as pukot. They are people who are poor, fishing in
Laguna de Bay using about 5 kilometers long of net and using diesel bancas
and yet are still considered small fishermen. That is why I would like to have
a
definition of a small fisherman because it is possible that very small
fishermen who depend all their life on fishing may be excluded.
MS. NIEVA: That is why we have used the word marginal.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then what is marginal?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think there are criteria like the annual income of the
family. The marginalized fishermen, according to research, are usually below
the poverty-threshold income and are usually the ones who join fishermens
associations in order that they can get loans and marketing and technical
assistance.
A project called FIRM has organized all the marginalized fishermen, of which
there are about 3,843. They are all below the poverty income which is one
criterion added to what we have said earlier. According to a survey, 40
percent own their boats and only 20 percent own any land. This is probably
what
would qualify them to become marginalized fishermen.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will give an example.
In our place, there is a man who is a fisherman since birth. In fact, he seldom
uses clothes on his back and his hair is already red because he is always
fishing in the sea. He was able to build a good house made of hollow blocks
and cement because of his fishing and is now considered one of the richest
fishermen there. He uses about three or four bancas powered by a Briggs
and Stratton 16 HP. He has about five or ten baklads connected with fish
pens and
catches a good amount of fish everyday. He earns a much better earning
than a regular employee, earning perhaps P1,500 a month. Is he a marginal
fisherman
under this term? If he is not a marginal fisherman, then he will not have the
right, the preferential right, to fish in Laguna de Bay.
I want to make this clear because he may say, I am a small fisherman and
yet he earns more than what a regular employee or a lawyer in our place
earns.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: On the basis of all these observations and doubts of
Commissioner de Castro, may we, therefore, hear his amendment, if he has
formulated one.
MR. DE CASTRO: I have not formulated any amendment. I would like first to
understand what is meant by marginal and what is meant by small.
MR. BENGZON: I think when the Committee says marginal fisherman, it
refers to one who subsists marginally through fishing.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, the Gentleman means a fisherman who lives on a handto-mouth existence?
MR. BENGZON: That is the meaning that the committee contemplated when
it used that word marginal. If the honorable Commissioner has some
difficulties
with respect to its interpretation, we would be happy to consider his
amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will think about it.

May I ask another question of the proponent?
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a clarification.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: It would not be correct to say that a fisherman, if he is not
classified as marginal would not be allowed to use marine and fishing
resource will not only be allowed preferential use. That is would not be
allowed unless he falls under and communities. But I do not think it would
be
accurate to say that he would be banned from using such resources because
he is not a marginal fisherman.
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: There is a pending issue at hand and that is the amendment
of Commissioner de los Reyes with respect to the definition of communal. I
suggest that we dispose of that issue first before we get entangled in
another issue as to the definition of small marginal fishermen and other
questions,
so that we will have some kind of order.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then I reserve my other questions to the proponent.
MR. RAMA: On the same issue as proposed by Commissioner de los Reyes, I
ask that Commissioner Villegas be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Villegas is
recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I make clarification? I think I was in
error when I referred to the four categories-agricultural, forest, mineral
lands and, if possible, national parks as categories of natural resources.
Those are the categories of lands of public domain. What we have decided in
Section 7 is to apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship to all
the natural resources which include water, mineral coal, petroleum and other
mineral oil, all force of potential energy, fisheries, forests, flora and fauna
and other natural resources. So, I would like to clarify the implication of
Section 7 as applying to all the natural resources and not only categories of
public lands that I referred to earlier. In this regard, I would like to
disagree with the suggestion that communal waters like Laguna de Bay be so
defined to prohibit fish pens. I think there is a provision in the Article on
National Economy that the State can limit the use of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries or industrial uses other than development
of
water power to beneficial use. It would prejudice eight million consumers of
fish, for example, in Metro Manila if we do not allow a highly productive
technology of fish farming that can be given to specific entrepreneurs who
can actually fish, have fishponds of bangus or other types of freshwater fish.
As long as we have the preferential rights given to these marginal fishermen,
I do not think we should completely prohibit the State from giving this type
of natural resources to individuals who can productively make use of these
waters for the benefit of eight million consumers of fish in Metro Manila. That
is why it is very much parallel to the concept of agrarian reform where we do
not prohibit the private cultivation of land by individuals. We have, for
example, the retention limit. So, I would object in saying categorically that
fish pens are prohibited in communal waters like Laguna de Bay.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Villegas answer one question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: In his experience and studies, does the Gentleman know
of any other country that allows its lakes and rivers to be fenced in such a
manner that a few moneyed people are able to exclude the marginal
fishermen from fishing in the communal fishing grounds?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, definitely. In fact, Nigeria has imported Philippine
technologists to teach her how to do inland fish farming.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Aside from Nigeria.
MR. VILLEGAS: There are not so many countries like the Philippines that have
developed the indigenous technology of fish farming. Actually, for the
information of the body, we are the pacesetters in the world in fish farming,
and I think it would be very much inimical to the very interest of the poor.
Remember that 50 percent of the diet of the poor depends on fish, and if we
start preventing technology from being used in the cultivation of water
resources I repeat, I am not against the application of the principles of
agrarian reform and stewardship to the marine resources; I am very much in
favor but I think we cannot be exclusivists and say that absolutely no use
of communal waters will be allowed for a technology that has been evolved
through the years in the Philippines . . . Just to allay the fears about the small
fishermen, we are also recommending in the Article on the National
Economy that priority be given to cooperative fish farming in rivers, lakes,
bays and lagoons. So, in the same way that in agrarian reform we say direct
use or collective use of land, we can also include in the provision for small
fishermen that they can get together and, in a cooperative way, take
advantage of the technology of fish farming. But it does not mean that we
cannot completely prohibit a private individual from doing the same thing.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de los Reyes will first
reply to the clarification of Commissioner Villegas.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Ako ay walang tutol na magkaroon tayo ng teknolohiya
upang lalong maging masulong ang pangingisda. Subalit hindi ito dapat
gawin sa
Laguna Lake at sa iba pang communal fishing grounds. Dapat itong gawin sa
mga inland fishing grounds. Kaya ko ipinaglalaban ang sampung libong
mangingisda
na naninirahan sa paligid ng Laguna at Rizal ay madali silang mahihikayat ng
ating mga kapatid sa labas na lumaban sa kasalukuyang sistema ng ating
pamahalaan sapagkat sinasabi ng ating mga kapatid sa labas na ang ating
batas ay para sa mayayaman lamang. Kapag sinimulan nating bigyan ng
pagkakataon ang
mga fishpen operators, wika nga ni Ka Blas Ople, in the real world ay hindi
naman magiging preferential lamang. Unti-unting mawawala ang small
fishermen at
magiging katulad ng mga American-Indians na sinasabing hindi pipinsalain
subalit unti-unting napapapunta sa Indian reservations. Iyon po ang aking
ipinaglalaban dito. Sampung libong pamilya ang nahihikayat na ng ating mga
kapatid na sinasabi nating naliligaw ng landas. Gusto nating magkaroon ng
pagkakataong ipakita sa kanila na sila ay hindi nalilimutan ng pamahalaan.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): We will hear briefly from
Commissioner de Castro on a point of information.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I offer some information in the light of the fact that we
are talking about Laguna Bay. Laguna Bay has an area of 90,000 hectares.
The
Laguna Lake Development Authority has limited the fish pens to about
21,000 hectares and only in a certain area, the reason being that it really
supplies a
greater amount of fish in Metro Manila and these fish pens employ
approximately 5 to 10,000 employees in their fish pens. Also, with fish pens
given the
right to be built in Laguna de Bay, all the places beginning from Ilocos down
to the southernmost of Mindanao have a good way of living because of
catching
the fries yung kawag na tinatawag na nagiging bangus. Ngayong mga
panahong hindi pa dumarating ang bagyo, maraming kawag sa Ilocos Norte,
Zambales,
Bataan hanggang Aurora, then down to Zambales, to the whole Bicol region,
Palawan, Mindoro and the whole Visayas up to Zamboanga. Ang hanapbuhay
ng mga tao
sa tabi ng dagat ay manghuli ng kawag at sila ay kumikita ng malaki rito. At
ang mga kawag na ito ay kailangan sapagkat ginagamit ng ilang fish pens sa
Laguna de Bay.
Will the proponent answer one question?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Is the Gentleman aware that there are fish pens established
by the so-called small fishermen through the ADB-OPEC funding?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There is such a program and I also know that these
fishermen who claim to be fishermen are not really fishermen but dummies
of moneyed
people.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, the Gentleman wants to say that the LLDA has
manipulated this money for ADB-OPEC, which money was taken from the
Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries through a loan and then given to the LLDA for
the construction of fish pens of supposedly small fishermen who have
established themselves into cooperatives. Is the Gentleman now telling me
that the ADB-OPEC funds have been misused by the LLDA?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I am not saying that the LLDA is deliberately misusing
the OPEC funds. What I am saying is that even the LLDA people are being
misled by
these people who act as dummies of the moneyed class.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): With this information given to us
and the statistical data made available, what is the position of the
Committee?
MR. VILLEGAS: May I just say something, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, there has been no proposal for
amendment.
But perhaps Commissioner de los Reyes, and even Commissioners Natividad
and Davide, can summarize what we discussed regarding the proper
definition of
communal marine and aquatic resources.
MR. VILLEGAS: May I have one last word please; one final reaction.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Villegas may
proceed.
MR. VILLEGAS: I think we are already treading in legislation because we are
talking about Laguna de Bay. I think I would completely agree with
Commissioner
de los Reyes regarding the general principle he mentioned that there are
other inland waters that ca be used for fishpens. I think he did admit already
that in principle he is not against having other inland waters.
The only bone of contention right now is whether or not Laguna de Bay is
going to be included among these bodies of water.
MR. MONSOD: May I just interrupt. The reason I wanted Commissioner de los
Reyes to speak is that earlier we had asked him if his amendment
automatically
means that the entire Laguna de Bay, as an example, is considered a
communal marine and fishing resource. We would want to seek a clarification
of his
answer because his initial answer was that the entire Laguna de Bay can be
considered communal. That is the reason we wanted a clarification. Perhaps,
that
could also help the Gentlemans concern.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What does Commissioner de los
Reyes say?
MR. DE LOS REYES: After conferring with Commissioners Natividad and
Davide and explaining to me the situations obtaining in their respective
provinces, I
am beginning to believe that we should have senators so that they will have
parochial views. I think I might be having parochial views with regard to
Laguna de Bay.
But, according to Commissioner Natividad, the shallow portions should be
considered communal because that is where the marginal fishermen could
fish. But
the deep portions of bays, rivers or lakes are where marginal fishermen could
not fish. Therefore nonmarginal fishermen, those who have big banca can be
allowed to fish in deep portions, giving preferential right, however, to
marginal fishermen to fish in the shallow portions.
Therefore, hearing the different views submitted I this representation the
suggestion is to insert the word THE before communal to read: to the
preferential use of THE communal marine and fishing resources to convey
the idea that it refers only to that portion which is declared communal.
Considering that legislation the art of the possible, I am willing to accept the
suggestion.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officers may I ask one question of the
proponent?
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: When the Gentleman says deep and he refers to Laguna
de Bay, may I know how many feet is the deepest portion of Laguna de Bay?
I know that Laguna de Bay is deepest during the rainy season, especially
from August to September, reaching about 15 feet; then during summer, it is
only
12 feet. What is now the communal portion since it is sometimes deep and
sometimes shallow? I know this because I live near Laguna de Bay and I may
even be
considered a marginal fisherman.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The problem in Laguna, as the Gentleman very well
knows, is that fish pens are being constructed in those portions where
traditionally
the small fishermen fish. Because of their big capital, the big fishermen could
move their fish pens somewhere in the middle of the lake.
Also, the problem in Laguna de Bay is that there is progressive and
uncontrollable siltation. The Gentleman knows what siltation is. Laguna de
Bay is
becoming a dead lake; it is getting shallower and shallower. And the reason
is the fish pens, the bamboos stuck in Laguna de Bay prevent the free flow
and
circulation of water and that is the cause of siltation.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, that was the statement made by our
governor. He said that bamboos cause siltation and nets prevent water
circulation.
It is mere common sense, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Let us hear from the Committee
whether they are satisfied by the clarification given by Commissioner de los
Reyes.
MR. DE CASTRO: The holes of nets are big and the water can flow through.
MR. BENGZON: We are already zeroing in on a specific portion of the
Philippines . . .
MR. DE CASTRO: I only made these comments because I happen to know
Laguna Lake which we are talking about, and I am giving this information for
the benefit
of the Committee.
MR. BENGZON: May we hear from Commissioner Monsod in representation of
the Committee.
MR. MONSOD: The explanation of Commissioner de los Reyes of his proposed
amendment now clarifies the point we raised before, and we are accepting
his
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de los Reyes will
please read his proposed amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The State shall protect the rights of marginal fishermen
and local communities to the PREFERENTIAL USE OF THE communal marine
and
fishing resources, both inland and offshore . . . The coauthors are
Commissioner Natividad, the Presiding Officer and Commissioner Davide.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The amendment has been accepted
by the Committee. Is there any objection?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Now that the Committee has accepted that amendment, I
would like to propound a few questions to the Committee for clarification.
The provision now states that the State shall protect the rights of marginal
fishermen and local communities to the preferential use of the communal
marine
and fishing resources, both inland and offshore.
So, there are two conditions in order to get a preference: first, he must be a
marginal fisherman; second, he must live in the local community. Must these
two conditions both be present? In other words, does one have to be both a
marginal fisherman and live in the community?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, those are not conjunctive. In other words,
one may be a marginal fisherman and be entitled to preferential use or it
may
be the entire local community.
MR. RODRIGO: So, a marginal fisherman, let us say, from Bataan, can fish in
Bulacan waters, in the communal fishing ground in Bulacan.
MR. MONSOD: We are referring to the fishermen in the area. And what the
Committee had in mind was really either individually or the entire community
because there are local communities that have formed fishing cooperatives.
MR. RODRIGO: I am not speaking of cooperatives but of marginal fishermen.
May any marginal fisherman from any part of the Philippines have
preferential
right to fish in the communal fishing ground by the shores of Bulacan
Province, or only the marginal fishermen in that area of Bulacan Province?
MR. MONSOD: I think we answered the question yesterday during the
interpellations of Commissioner Ople, that it is not the primary intention of
the
Committee to exclude. In other words, somebody from another place who is
a marginal fisherman may avail of the preferential use of these marginal
areas.
So, because it is not exclusive to the people in the area marginal fishermen
may avail of them. This was asked yesterday by Commissioner Ople.
MR. RODRIGO: So, provided one is a marginal fisherman, he is given
preferential right to fish in any communal fishing ground anywhere in the
Philippines;
is that right?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: If one lives in the vicinity, even if he is a rich fisherman, he
can fish in the communal fishing ground of the vicinity.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, the preferential use is for certain people.

MR. RODRIGO: The Gentleman said this is either-or. As to a marginal
fisherman, he does not have to live in the local community to get preferential
treatment.
How about those who live in the local communities? Do they get preferential
treatment only if they are marginal fishermen?
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Or is it enough that they live in the local community?
MR. BENGZON: No. If an individual lives in a local community but he is not a
marginal fisherman, he does not have preferential treatment.
MR. RODRIGO: What is then the use of placing local community here? We
might as well delete the term.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, is it the intent of the Committee to refer
to groups or to persons who fish as a group in the local community?
MR. RODRIGO: But suppose marginal fishermen from Palawan, fishing as a
group, come to Manila Bay to fish in the communal fishing ground by the
seashore of
Bulacan. They are marginal fishermen working as a group; are they entitled
to preference?
MR. BENGZON: We believe that that is really theoretical and may remain
theoretical because marginal fishermen, for example, in Palawan, whether
they go as
individuals or in groups, cannot afford to go to Manila, for example.
MR. RODRIGO: Palawan is indeed too far. How about from Cavite?
MR. BENGZON: Yes
MR. RODRIGO: Let us discuss the implementation of this because I would not
want to raise the hopes of our people, and afterwards fail in the
implementation. How will this be implemented? Will there be licensing or
giving of permits so that government Officials will know that one is really a
marginal fisherman? Or if policemen say that a person is not a marginal
fisherman, he can show his permit, to prove that indeed he is one.
MR. BENGZON: Certainly, there will be some mode of licensing insofar as this
is concerned and this particular question could be tackled when we discuss
the
Article on Local Governments whether we will leave to the local
governments or to Congress on how these things will be implemented. But
certainly, I
think our congressmen and our local officials will not be bereft of ideas on
how to implement this mandate.
MR. MONSOD: There are two aspects to this: the aspect of exclusion and the
aspect of inclusion. In the case of exclusion, it is easier. In other words, in
areas considered communal, the putting up of fish pens or allowing big
fishing enterprises to fish in that area may be prohibited. That is the
exclusion
aspect. In the case of inclusion, on who are considered marginal fishermen or
what are marginal local communities, I believe the answer of Commissioner
Bengzon would apply There might be a need for identifying them by a
system of licensing.
MR. RODRIGO: So, once one is licensed as a marginal fisherman, he can go
anywhere in the Philippines and fish in any fishing grounds.
MR. BENGZON: Subject to whatever rules and regulations and local laws that
may be passed, may be existing or will be passed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Then Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I think the issue has been sufficiently debated. I move that we
take a vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: Presiding Officer, just a possible amendment to avoid
confusion on the phrase local communities. I think it is quite clear that
what the
Gentleman meant was directly or collectively, as he said in the provision on
agrarian reform.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Villegas is offering an
amendment to the proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. VILLEGAS: After the phrase rights of, add MARGINAL FISHERMEN
DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL so that the phrase local
communities is
not misunderstood. So, the provision will read: The State shall protect the
rights of MARGINAL FISHERMEN DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY TO THE
PREFERENTIAL use
of THE COMMUNAL marine and fishing resources . . .
MR. MONSOD: What about INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY?
MR. VILLEGAS: INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Does Commissioner de los Reyes
accept the proposed amendment to his amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Villegas repeat his amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: The State shall protect the rights of MARGINAL FISHERMEN
INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL use . . . and all the
rest will
be like the Gentlemans proposal.
MR. DE LOS REYES: What happened to local communities?
MR. VILLEGAS: COLLECTIVELY refers to local communities.
MR. DE LOS REYES: We accept the amendment.
MR. BENGZON: We accept, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is there any objection to the
proposed amendment, as amended by Commissioner de los Reyes?
MR. RODRIGO: Just one question. Are the words local communities deleted?
MR. BROCKA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: I am a member of the Committee and when we were
discussing this local communities specifically this was in reference to
that particular
example given, the Laguna de Bay fishermen. So, the phrase marginal
fishermen INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY does not quite catch the
reference to a
particular community in that particular area. When we were discussing this
particular phrase local communities, it was in direct reference to a
particular fishing community like Laguna de Bay. The amendment does not
quite catch the meaning of the discussions on that.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, when we used local communities
earlier, it was appropriate because we were also using communal use.
Then we enlarged
the meaning so that we took out beneficial or communal and just left
use. We can change the wording to COLLECTIVE because it would have
the same
meaning in that context.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the meaning be preserved if we say The State shall
protect the rights of marginal fishermen ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE local
communities
to the PREFERENTIAL use of the COMMUNAL marine and fishing
resources . . .?
MR. BENGZON: The amendment does not capture our real intent.
BISHOP BACANI: The amendment includes marginal fishermen and the
preference for them in the local communities because obviously in the
Committee, we did
not intend to give preference even to the nonmarginal fishermen in the local
community. The real stress was for the marginal fishermen in the local
communities and I think the amendment will actually express what you are
trying to do in the community.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So what is the position of the
Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we have a minute to consult with
the rest of the Committee on this?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The session is suspended for a few
minutes.
It was 6:27 p.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The session is resumed.
Will the Committee now state its phraseology of this proposed sentence?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask that Commissioner Bacani
be recognized?
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, after conferring with the members of
the Committee, it seems we are all agreed now. The provision will read: The
State shall protect the rights of MARGINAL FISHERMEN ESPECIALLY OF local
communities to the PREFERENTIAL USE OF THE communal marine and
fishing resources.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): And that continues to both inland
and offshore, PARTI- CULARLY IN MUNICIPAL FISHING GROUNDS.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, the Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is there any objection to this
proposed amendment?
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Before we vote on this, may I be allowed to reserve my
definition of marginal fishermen because I intend to make the research
tonight
and see what marginal is. As of now, I am not cleared of what is marginal
and what are small fishermen. May I reserve the right to define these
terms?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): For inclusion in the Journal
tomorrow.
MR. DE CASTRO: Not only for inclusion in the Journal tomorrow but also for
the change of the word marginal based on the definition because as of now
the
definition is hand-to-mouth.
MR. BENGZON: We request that we first vote on the amendment of
Commissioner Bacani and then we will decide on the proposal of
proposed amendment as proposed Commissioner Bacani?
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, the preferential use communal marine and fishing
resources.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Will Commissioner Bacani please
read again his proposed amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: I will read it again although that was not the particular point
of the amendment I introduced.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is this within the entire proposed
present text?
BISHOP BACANI: The State shall protect the of marginal fishermen
ESPECIALLY OF local communities to the PREFERENTIAL use of THE
COMMUNAL marine and
fishing resources both inland and offshore PARTICULARLY IN MUNICIPAL
FISHING GROUNDS.
MR. PADILLA: Will the proponent consider the rights of marginal fisherman in
his local community? I make it singular because when you say in their
respective local communities, while it is singular, the preferential right
applies to all marginal fishermen.
BISHOP BACANI: There are two senses that we wanted to preserve and that
is why that formulation was presented by myself first, that we should also
accord
preferential treatment to fishermen from other communities provided they
are marginalized. Second, we should especially accord the right of
preferential
use to fishermen who belong to the local community. We do not intend to
give the right of preferential use to rich fishermen in the local communities.
That
is the reason for the special formulation.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask for a vote?

VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) As many as are in favor of the
proposed first sentence of this section, as amended, please raise their hand.
(Several
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Member raised his hand.)
approved.
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I now reserve my right to define marginal fishermen?
May I be given at least tonight to do my research on what marginal
means?
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
My amendments to Section 8 are very simple. I hope the Committee will
accept the same. This would be on lines 5, 6, and 7. On line 5 between the
words
provide and appropriate, insert SUPPORT THROUGH; between
appropriate and financial, insert the following: TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH
AND ADEQUATE. Then
delete tech at the end of the line. On line 6, delete nical and the words
and research and before assistance, insert PRODUCTION AND
MARKETING.
After assistance, insert the words AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES. So, the
two lines will read: grounds, and shall provide SUPPORT THROUGH
appropriate
technology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRODUCTION AND
MARKETING ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Just a moment, Commissioner
Davide. After grounds, there is a period.
MR. DAVIDE: Was it placed already?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So the first sentence ends after the
word grounds. What the Gentleman is now proposing will be the second
sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: So, the second sentence will read: THE STATE shall ALSO
provide SUPPORT THROUGH appropriate technology, research and
ADEQUATE FINANCIAL,
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES,
TO SAID FISHERMEN for the . . .
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would Commissioner Davide accept an amendment to
his amendment? I was wondering if he can delete the first support so that it
will just
read: THE STATE shall ALSO provide appropriate technology . . . AND OTHER
SUPPORT SERVICES.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we only want a symmetry of this proposal
with the earlier wordings on Section 6, and symmetry in the benefits and
advantages to be given to both the farmers, farm workers, cooperatives and
so on the one hand, and to the marginal fishermen on the other. I would like
to
consider Commissioner Rosario Braid as a coauthor in view of the use of the
words AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES, which was her amendment to Section
6.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is Commissioner Rosario Braid
satisfied with the Gentlemans withdrawing her amendment to the
amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I am just concerned about the use of the words and I
would be willing to have the anterior amendment in Section 6 and just say
shall
provide appropriate technology. It is really just a matter of style and maybe
the Committee on Style can handle it.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, the intention here is just to provide
support. But if we remove the word support, it would be mandatory on the
part of
the State and the State may not be able to afford this. So, I think providing
support is the better compromise.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is Commissioner Rosario Braid
satisfied with that explanation?
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose an amendment to the
amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I yield to Commissioner Sarmiento.
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Is Commissioner Davide willing to delete the word
SUPPORT in the phrase AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES because we
would be having two
supports. So, the amendment will read: provide SUPPORT THROUGH
appropriate technology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRODUCTION
AND MARKETING
ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SERVICES.
MR. DAVIDE: We are agreeable with the interpretation that these other
services would simply mean other support services. But just to avoid
repeating the
word support, we are agreeable.
MR. SUAREZ: Will the Honorable Davide agree to change the. beginning of
the sentence from THE STATE to IT because there is already a repetition?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So, how will the proposed second
sentence now read?
MR. DAVIDE: It will now read as follows: IT shall also provide SUPPORT
THROUGH appropriate technology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL,
PRODUCTION AND
MARKETING ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SERVICES, TO SAID FISHERMEN for
the . . .
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): May we hear from the Committee?
MR. BENGZON: We accept the amendment.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts, Mr. Presiding Officer.
proposed amendment constituting the second sentence of this section?
(Silence) The
MR. DAVIDE: I wonder if Commissioner Ople would have no amendment.
MR. RAMA: He has an amendment on the same section.
MR. OPLE: An additional sentence which, of course, would require dropping
the phrase about foreign intrusion.
MS. NIEVA: The phrase was dropped.
MR. OPLE: Was it already dropped?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, this was a mistake yesterday.
MR. OPLE: So, I do not think I would stand in the way of any further
amendment by Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: The words and from intrusion of foreign investments . . .
MS. NIEVA: The phrase was dropped by the Committee. It was only typed in
by mistake of the staff. There is a corrected page but we are just using this
one.
MR. DAVIDE: So, this was dropped already because my proposal will be to
delete this phrase.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So where will the sentence end?
MR. DAVIDE: However, I would like to insert the word PROTECTION and a
comma (,) before development on line 7 because this will give way to
another
proposal regarding foreign intrusion but worded differently. I understand that
Commissioner Ople will have an amendment to that effect. So, in anticipation
of his amendment which would relate to protection, we would now insert the
word PROTECTION and a comma (,) before development to read:
PROTECTION,
development and conservation of such resources.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Then we delete and from intrusion
of foreign investments.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that has already been deleted. So, it is just the insertion of
the word PROTECTION followed by a comma (,) before development on line
7,
to give way to the Ople proposal which I also am willing to support.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
The proposed amendment which is a new sentence under Section 8 shall
read as follows: THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH A POLICY TO PROTECT FROM
FOREIGN INTRUSION
THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS WITH THEIR MARINE WEALTH WHICH
SHALL BE RESERVED TO EXCLUSIVE EXPLOITATION BY FILIPINO CITIZENS
ESPECIALLY SMALL FISHERMEN.
This amendment is proposed jointly by Commissioners Natividad, Rodrigo, de
los Reyes, de Castro, Davide and myself. I think I will spare the Commission
and
the Committee the reiteration of the basis for this amendment which I made
yesterday during the general debate. We all know that the intrusion of
foreign
fishing vessels in our fishing waters, among the richest in Southeast Asia and
the Pacific, has reached scandalous proportions. In a place just off Iba,
Zambales and this incident I had the occasion to report to this body
yesterday to add insult to injury, Japanese fishing vessels even have the
temerity
to ram the small boats of small Filipino fishermen. This was brought to my
attention and a report was sent by me to competent authorities concerning
this.
Therefore, I think this will round off the section immediately preceding in
terms of declaring a policy to protect our marine wealth in our own territorial
waters from the intrusion of foreign fishing vessels and from foreign capital.
There is an element in the last part where a policy of preserving the
exploitation of our marine wealth to Filipino citizens especially small
fishermen is set forth. So, I ask for the Committees kind consideration of this
proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: May I ask just one question of the proponent of the amendment?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: By national territorial waters, are we referring to the territorial sea
of the Philippines?
MR. OPLE: Yes, especially the coastal waters which are exploited but which
should be exploited by our own fishermen alone, by our own citizens alone.
MR. FOZ: Are we also referring to the so-called archipelagic waters?
MR. OPLE: I am not sure but I understand the specific meaning of
archipelagic waters. But if they belong to our territorial waters, then they are
comprised
by these.
MR. FOZ: What about the internal waters as mentioned and more or less
defined in our Article on the National Territory?
MR. OPLE: They are comprised undoubtedly; Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: What about the waters in the so-called exclusive economic zone
over which, under the Convention of the Law of the Sea, the Philippines has
jurisdiction?
MR. OPLE: The construction of the 200-mile economic zone by most
authorities pertains to the wealth in the seabed. I think in the same degree
that Filipino
fishermen are allowed to fish in the 200-economic mile zone of our
neighboring countries, then this same privilege should not be denied to the
fishermen of
other countries.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Concepcion is

recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: The 200-mile exclusive economic zone is now part of the
internal waters of the Philippines. Our base line is drawn from the farthest
points
into the sea. The line drawn extends from Batanes to Palawan, down to the
southernmost part of Mindanao, following the farthest point of our territory
into
the sea. The economic zone starts from the base line at present. There is no
question, therefore, that from the old meaning of these terms, the area in
question is included within our internal waters, which is subject to our
sovereignty.
MR. OPLE: I want to thank Commissioner Concepcion for offering this
information, although this may differ somewhat from the meaning attributed
by others to
the 200-economic mile zone. I do not think the 200-mile economic zone has
a one-to-one correspondence with our internal waters. As a matter of fact,
these
economic zones have to be negotiated with neighboring countries when
there is an overlap of the 200-mile economic zones. An example is Taiwan
which is
separated from the northern cape of Luzon by just about 120 miles, and
where do we put the economic zone of the Philippines and of Taiwan in that
respect?
MR. CONCEPCION: That was before the adoption of the archipelagic doctrine
but not since then.
MR. OPLE: To the extent that Commissioner Concepcion is right, so long as an
economic zone is understood to comprise part of our internal waters, then
there is a call under this paragraph for the Philippines to protect these
waters and their marine wealth from foreign intrusion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: May we ask the proponent for the sake of the record as to
what is encompassed by foreign intrusion?
MR. OPLE: Foreign intrusion in this respect refers above all to fishing vessels
which directly encroach on marine wealth that should be enjoyed exclusively
by our fishermen. Secondly, it refers to foreign capital because as we can see
in the last clause, the marine wealth in this territorial water shall be
reserved to exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens and, therefore, foreign
capital is considered a form of intrusion once this is adopted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Would the Gentleman have any objection to going for the
jugular by removing the phrase ALSO ESTABLISH A POLICY TO such that the
proposed
amendment would read: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FROM FOREIGN
INTRUSION?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I welcome the amendment which improves the paragraph, as
a matter of fact, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: Just for the record, I would like to read the Article on National
Territory that the Commission had approved.
I think the intention of Commissioner Ople will only include the territorial
waters; it would not expand to the territorial sea over which the Philippines
would still have jurisdiction. The article reads:
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial,
and aerial domains, including the territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas thereof. The waters
around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective
of
their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.
I would like to inquire from Commissioner Ople if by territorial waters he
would include the territorial sea over which the Philippines has jurisdiction?
MR. OPLE: I would like to say, yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DAVIDE: So, if the idea is such, the provision should read . . .
MR. OPLE: Just a minute. May I please continue that sentence?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. OPLE: I said I would like to say yes but when we speak of the territorial
sea, this can extend, I understand, to about 300 miles from the nearest base
lines under the archipelagic theory. This may modify the scope of this article
which is meant to be an article on social justice, in support of social
justice for fishermen to something like a national policy on national security
and foreign relations. So, I want to be more modest keep the idea of this
protection within bounds and to an extent that the State, without arousing
false hopes and expectations, can actually endeavor to carry out. And I feel
safer when for purposes of determining the intent of this Commission, we
really want to confine ourselves to protecting the territorial waters of the
Philippines. Maybe someday when we have a real navy and a coast guard
capable of policing the entire length and breadth of the country which is
twice the
coastline of the United States, then the construction of this paragraph can
rise to a new level; it also means that the State has a duty to protect our
marine resources and the rights of our small fishermen from foreign intrusion
in the territorial sea.
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we just ask a clarificatory question? We are now including
areas that could be the subject of exploitation by commercial fishing. Would
the
Gentleman include in the definition of Filipino citizens corporations of which
60 percent is owned by Filipino citizens?
MR. OPLE: Yes, in accordance with the provision of the Article on the National
Economy which very soon will reach the plenary session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Davide may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: Just an additional question for Commissioner Ople. By territorial
waters, would the Gentleman actually mean the internal waters of the
Philippines as defined under the Article on National Territory which will not
include the territorial sea?
MR. OPLE: Yes, without prejudice to any other section of the Constitution,
raising its sights higher with respect to the protection of our territorial seas
for purposes of national security.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, Congress may have, subsequently or later, the
authority to include in territorial waters the territorial sea itself?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I want to confirm that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So, may we have the proposed
amendment with the deletion and the transposition duly taken into account.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. The amendment reads: THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL
WATERS WITH THEIR
MARINE WEALTH WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED TO EXCLUSIVE EXPLOITATION
BY FILIPINO CITIZENS ESPECIALLY SMALL FISHERMEN.
MR. BENGZON: We just want to ask some clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer.
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: The intent of this paragraph, I believe, is to protect the small
fisherman.
MR. OPLE: Yes, and the rights of the Filipino people, to whom the fishermen
belong as a major group, to the exclusive use of their own marine resources
that God has given them.
MR. BENGZON: Then this is not really a paragraph that pertains to this
particular Article. This should be a paragraph that pertains to the Article on
the
National Economy because it is wider in its scope.
MR. OPLE: It does pertain, Mr. Presiding Officer, to social justice. It pertains to
the rights of small fishermen, but within the context of a policy to
reserve the marine wealth of our own territorial waters, especially of our
internal waters, to exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens; meaning, in the
majority of cases, Filipino fishermen.
MR. BENGZON: Would the Gentleman have any objections if we defer this
until we discuss the Article on the National Economy? Perhaps we could
include this
concept on the Article on the National Economy?
MR. OPLE: I think this is appropriately located as it is. I do not think a
nationalistic policy would be incompatible with the rights of small fishermen,
especially when we are thinking of conserving these easily depleted
resources for the use and enjoyment of our own fishermen and of our own
people. So, I
do not believe it must wait for another committee, dealing with national
patrimony, to send its report to this Committee before we act on this
provision
which has been under debate since yesterday.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask some clarificatory questions of
Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Quesada is
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: As we said earlier, we are referring particularly to the interest
or to the protection of small fishermen. But with the statement to the
exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens, is the Gentleman also not
disregarding the interest of big fishermen in this particular provision?
MR. OPLE: Yes, the emphasis is especially small fishermen. The position in
which I see the bigger Filipino fishermen is relative to Japanese, Taiwanese
and
Korean intruders into our shores; they are the victims of social injustice.
MS. NIEVA: Will the Gentleman give us one minute? We are trying to
formulate or reformulate this in such a way that the social justice aspect will
not be
lost, as the Commissioner said.
MR. OPLE: I am absolutely at the disposal of the Committee.
MS. NIEVA: I think we are more concerned here with the protection of the
rights of the small fishermen from foreign intrusion. We believe that the parts
about exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens belong rightly to the Article
on the National Economy. However, for social justice, we agree that the
rights of the small fishermen should be protected from foreign intrusion. So,
we are trying to reformulate.
MR. MONSOD: In effect what we are saying is that the marginal fishermen
have certain traditional areas where they fish. These areas are not
necessarily the
areas that large-scale corporations can fish in. And, if we get the
Commissioners original intent, areas which are the traditional fishing
grounds of
marginal fishermen should be protected.
With respect to the general principle of exclusive use of marine and fishing
resources in territorial waters, that might be more appropriate in the Article
on the National Economy. So, if we can insert a phrase regarding marginal
fishermen in the same section, we may serve the Commissioners purpose
and then
transpose the bigger paragraph in the Article on the National Economy
section.
MR. OPLE: That is precisely my point, Mr. Presiding Officer, that there is a fullbodied context to the rights of the small fishermen in this paragraph.
Although we try to distinguish here between the small fishermen and the
bigger fishermen, we might lose sight of a community of interest between
them in
the sense that they have to share the same marine resources that should be
reserved to the exclusive enjoyment of Filipino citizens, especially fishermen,
and more especially, the small fishermen. What I am saying is that if we had
inserted in the previous section the objectives of protection and conservation
and development of our marine resources, I see no reason why we cannot
transpose the same principle in a more nationalistic context where there is a
unity
of interest between the small fishermen and the big fishermen and the
Filipino people as a whole.
May I call your attention to the fact that the deep-sea fishing fleets of the
Philippines are just about gone. They cannot compete with Taiwanese,
Korean
and Japanese fishing operators who routinely, habitually, and with total
impunity intrude into our waters, depleting the marine resources that should
be
reserved to the exclusive exploitation and enjoyment of the Filipino people.
So, why do we have to truncate this paragraph, separate the class context
from
the national context, just because we have to satisfy some needs or
standards of division between the Committee on the National Economy and
the Committee
on Social Justice? I believe that a great part of the contextual meaning
intended for this paragraph is lost.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The Committee is still determining
the proper situs for this amendment. Let us hear from Commissioner Rigos
because
his amendment may have a bearing on this.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not detect any strong objection of the
Committee to this proposed amendment. Perhaps, we can act on this
proposed
amendment with the understanding that should the Style Committee find
that it belongs more properly to another article, that said Committee be
given the
privilege to transfer it.
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: I personally believe that this section should not express the
unified interest of small and big fishermen. I think this section should only
pertain to small fishermen. May I be allowed to explain briefly?
Our small fishermen are complaining against big fishermen. We have Filipino
big fishermen who have modern fishing technology with sonars, radars and
echo
sounders to track down fish at the expense of small fishermen. As a matter
of fact, fishermen from San Sebastian, Samar expressed that there are big
fishing capitalists who are subdividing sea areas among themselves and are
collecting tributes from fishermen who trespass. In Lilanga Lake, Zambales
again, this pertains to Filipino big fishermen there are rich businessmen
who have been appropriating for themselves large portions of Lilanga Lake to
develop into fishponds. The lake is 20 hectares wide in San Roque, Lilanga,
Zambales. So, I personally believe that this section should not express the
unified interests of two sectors small and big fishermen, I think this should
express the interest of small, marginal fishermen.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am for conserving time and for conserving
the efforts that have already been exerted especially on this subject by the
Committee which has been working hard the whole day. If it needs this new
line of thought that there should be no bond of unity between one upper
crust and
one lower crust the same fishermen sector in Filipino society for purposes of
the Article on Social Justice, I would be amenable right now to saying that
this protection from foreign intrusion shall pertain mainly to the rights of the
small fishermen so that the provision will read: The State shall protect
FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS WITH THEIR
MARINE WEALTH WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED PRINCIPALLY TO THE USE AND
ENJOYMENT OF SMALL
FISHERMEN.
MR. OPLE: If incidentally, this benefits the richer fishermen, then that is
completely incidental.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponent agree to son amendments without
prejudice to introducing in the proper Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony the
bigger concept? If the intention is just to harmonize this totally for social
justice, the proposed amendment would read as follows: after resources,
insert comma (,) and the following: INCLUDING PROTECTION AGAINST
INTRUSION BY FOREIGN INTERESTS IN THE USE AND ENJOYMENT THEREOF.
So, that would leave the matter completely to the marginal fishermen. But it
would also mean protection not only of the fishermen but also of the marine
and fishing resources against intrusion by foreign interests in the use and
enjoyment thereof.
I used the word interest so it will qualify all kinds of foreign intrusion,
whether it would be by a capitalist or whether it would be by a dummy. I
wonder if that would be acceptable to the Committee. But we leave the
matter of general principle on reserving these fishing and marine resources
to
Filipino citizens only in the Article on the National Economy and the
Patrimony of the nation.
MR. OPLE: Before I yield on this point, Mr. Presiding Officer, and I am so
concerned that the Commission should now take a well-earned rest at the
end of a
very tough and exhilarating day, may I know whether the Chairman of the
National Patrimony Committee who is here will agree to a clause or a
sentence when
the patrimony amendment reaches the floor that will embody this concept of
the exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens of our own marine resources?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Villegas is
recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. In fact, it fits very well into one of
the articles.
MR. OPLE: On that basis then, I am receptive to the Davide amendment, Mr.
Presiding Officer, unless it clutters up unduly this well-sculptured preceding
sentence.
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: We would like to sleep on this thing but we would like to
suggest that perhaps, we can draft something that might express the
concern of small
fishermen in the seashores that was referred to by Commissioner Sarmiento
if we say: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE TRADITIONAL FISHING GROUNDS
OF MUNICIPAL
FISHERMEN FROM THE INTRUSION OF FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS.
MR. DAVIDE: That would not convey the fullness of the idea. It is not just
shipping vessels but foreign corporations, partnerships or associations or
fishermen fishing in these areas. It is not intrusion by the use of vessels
passing through or over it.
MR. MONSOD: The intrusion of foreign interests.
MR. DAVIDE: That is it. So, it is just to continue the original wording. After
resources, add a comma (,) and the following: INCLUDING PROTECTION
AGAINST
INTRUSION BY FOREIGN INTERESTS IN THE USE AND ENJOYMENT THEREOF,
meaning, the marine and fishing resources.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Davide consider an alternative amendment
which I would like to propose on behalf of Commissioner Romulo and myself,
as well as
Commissioner Davide, if he is willing to associate with a somewhat amended
version of his version?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE: The amendment will read: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE
SMALL FISHERMEN IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS. THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT THE SMALL
FISHERMEN FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, the idea of my proposal is to widen the
umbrella of the protection. It is not only protection of the interest of the
marginal fishermen but also of the resources themselves.
MR. BENGZON: Then that is not social justice anymore.
MR. MONSOD: That would be national economy.
MR. BENGZON: That is already national territory.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it is not, because these natural resources are reserved for
the marginal fishermen.
MR. BENGZON: Not only for marginal fishermen.
MR. DAVIDE: Not necessarily the marginal fishermen.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I call the attention of Commissioner
Davide once again to this formulation: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE
SMALL
FISHERMEN IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS FROM FOREIGN
INTRUSION. By construction, foreign intrusion refers to foreign fishing
vessels with their
superior equipment, and also to foreign capital or its agents.
MR. DAVIDE: I would propose an amendment: AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS.
MR. OPLE: The amendment is accepted, Mr. Presiding Officer. In its latest
permutation may I read the amendment, as amended: THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT THE
SMALL FISHERMEN FROM THE INTRUSION OF FOREIGN INTERESTS.
MR. DAVIDE: AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS.
MR. OPLE: AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS. But that sounds slightly
xenophobic. In a Constitution, one has to look for a buffer between intrusion
and
interests.
MR. LERUM: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask a question.
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we request an adjournment of the session so that each of
us can go back and draft a proposal along the same lines.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I endorse the proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The consideration is deferred and
the session is adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.
It was 7:23 p.m.
Footnotes:
R.C.C. NO. 51
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Gregorio J. Tingson.
PRAYER
MR. TINGSON: Our dear loving Heavenly Father, we realize only too well that
unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.
We are mandated to build a charter for our country that will stand the test of
time and the changing tempers of men. We need wisdom, dear Lord, to do
this
task for we are but men with finite understanding and limited knowledge.
We confess that we do not have the wisdom of a Solomon, the wit and
brilliance of an Aristotle, the deep insight of Jose Rizal, nor the homespun
zing of a
Will Rogers. But with the ever-available aid of the Holy Spirit, we now humbly
beseech Thee not for tasks equal to our power but for power equal to our
heavy task.
Father in heaven, we are humbled by the words of our Sublime Paralytic:
No matter how the government tries to renew itself, all of its efforts would
amount to naught if there would be no corresponding change in the hearts of
the people.
Help us, dear Lord, to come up with a Constitution that will, in essence,
continually remind our people of the timely words of the Prophet:
If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray
and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from
heaven and
will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Help us to finish our new fundamental law in Thine own good time as we 48
Commissioners bear in mind that in things major we should have unity, in
things
minor, liberty; but in all things always to demonstrate charity.
We adore Your Holy Name; we praise You for what You have done in and
through us; and we petition Thee loving Heavenly Father, for a greater
measure of Your
instruction, inspiration and sanctification.
This is our individual and collective prayer in the wonderful and matchless
name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present*
Azcuna
Present*
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present*
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present*
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present*
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present*
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

of the Journal of yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
previous session.
motion is approved.
of Business.
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General read the following Communications and Committee
Reports, the President making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Jovito A. Avancena of 25 Asteroid, Bel Air, Makati, Metro
Manila, and three hundred ninety others with their respective addresses,
seeking
the inclusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging the State to protect
the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Tomas S. Tuazon of Motrico, La Paz, Tarlac, suggesting equal
protection of the law for the rich and the poor to promote national unity.
Communication from Mr. Pelagio B. Estopia, proposing a parliamentary form
of government with a bicameral legislature, that declaration of martial law
and
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus shall need confirmation of the
legislature, and the nationalization of industries and the exploitation of
natural
resources.
(communication No. 493 Constitutional Commission of 1986)

Position paper of the Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce, P.O. Box
7258, San Francisco, California 94120, U.S.A., signed by its President, Mr.
Juan G.
Collas, Jr., suggesting among others that the new Constitution shall embody
some features that can attract foreign capital, that regulation of foreign
capital shall be left to legislation, and that Filipinos be allowed dual
citizenship.
Letter from Mr. Norberto Navarro Caparas of 555 Kaunlaran Street, Barangay
Commonwealth, Quezon City proposing an amendment to Section 11 of the
Proposed
Amendment to the Article on Social Justice, to wit: IN APPROPRIATE CASES,
LANDS OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT BUT WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN
CONVERTED BY OCCUPANTS
INTO A VIABLE COMMUNITY SHALL BE DONATED TO THEM SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS IN A LAW TO BE ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
Letter from Mr. Edmundo A. Damatac of Lallo, Cagayan, advocating that the
incumbent President and Vice-President be given the chance to serve the sixyear
term for which they have been elected.
Communication jointly submitted by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan,
Society of Professionals for the advancement of Democracy, League of
Filipino Students,
Kapunungan san mag uuma sa Masbate, Simbahang Katoliko sa Barangay,
Kabataan para sa Demokrasya Nasyonalismo, and Masbate Peoples
Organization, all in
Masbate, suggesting among others the following: (1) removal of the U.S.
military bases in the Philippines, (2) abrogation of the U.S.-R.P. Mutual
Defense
Treaty, Military Assistance Agreement, R.P.-Japan Treaty of Amity, Commerce
and Navigation; (3) right to strike and collective bargaining, and (4) creation
of a human rights commission.
Letter from Mr. Cesar P. Nimez of Suba, Lilo-an, Cebu, transmitting a joint
resolution adopted by various civic associations and organizations of Lilo-an,
Cebu, containing among others the following proposals: (1) all title/lease
contract documents of foreshore lands issued during the Marcos regime be
revoked
or declared null and void; (2) all foreshore land must be turned over to the
municipal government where they are situated; and (3) all foreshore lands
cannot be leased/titled for business purposes.
Letter from Mr. Roberto Lazaro of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, advocating
that the Philippines be one of the regular states of the United States.
Principles.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 35 submitted by the Committee on the Legislative re
Proposed Resolution No. 411 and Proposed Resolution No. 428 informing the
Commission of their incorporation in Committee Report No. 22 on the Article
on the Legislative Department, as reported out on July 7, 1986.
To the Archives.
Committee Report No. 36 on Proposed Resolution No. 537, prepared by the
Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles,
entitled:
THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES,
recommending its approval.

Sponsored by Hon. Davide, Jr., Nolledo, Sarmiento, Tingson, Bengzon, Jr.,
Aquino, de los Reyes, Jr., Rigos, Rosario Braid, Quesada. de Castro, Nieva,
Villacorta, Rama, Bacani, Colayco, Calderon, Suarez, Ople, Gascon, Villegas,
Rosales, Azcuna, Foz and Garcia.
CONSIDERATION OF
Continuation
MR. ROMULO: I move that we continue the consideration of Committee
Report No. 34 on Proposed Resolution No. 534. We are still in the period of
amendments.
motion is approved.
The honorable Chairman and members of the Committee will please occupy
the front table.
At this juncture, may we acknowledge the presence of a good number of
students from Maryknoll College, St. Scholasticas College, St. Josephs
College and
St. Bridgets College. So, we welcome all these young people who have come
to see our proceedings and to show their interest in the documents that we
are
drafting for our people.
MR. ROMULO: When we adjourned yesterday, we were in Section 8 and

Commissioner Ople was discussing his amendment. Inasmuch as he is not
here, may I ask the
Committee if they are willing to defer consideration of Section 8 and move to
Section 9.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say? Are we ready to proceed to
Section 9?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we are, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: So, Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized for his amendments on Section 9.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, before we move on to Section 9, could we
just have some clarifications on Section 8? Is Commissioner Ople here?
THE PRESIDENT: He is not yet here. So, we will defer it.
MS. QUESADA: My concern, Madam President, is about a member of the
fishing-industry called the kasama or the equivalent of the tenant. They are
not covered
in the provision on the preferential rights given to fishermen who we refer to
oftentimes as the small boat owners. Actually, we are leaving out a
particular sector which, I understand, composes one of the largest groups of
this sector.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take that up when Commissioner Ople is here.
MR. MONSOD: We actually have a proposed sentence there which will be an
amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Ople. We are going to have
it typed and
distributed so that by the time he arrives, we can consider it.
THE PRESIDENT: So, can we then proceed to Section 9?

The proposed amendment is only to transfer Section 9 to the Article on the
National Economy and Patrimony which contains the general constitutional
mandates or directives affecting all natural resources including agricultural,
fishing and marine resources subject, of course, to the provisions on this
particular Article. But since this would involve the main thrust toward
industrialization, I think the proper situs for Section 9 is the Article on the
MR. BENNAGEN: I object to the deletion of Section 9.
MR. DAVIDE: This is not a deletion but merely a transfer to another Article.
MR. BENNAGEN: But it is a deletion from the Article on Social Justice.
MR. DAVIDE: Not from the Constitution.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: It is still in the Constitution.
MR. BENNAGEN: I am interested in the provision as part of the Article on
Social Justice for the important reason that agrarian reform as well as the
other
reforms that have to be done in other areas, such as fishing and marine
resources, should be done in relation to complementary processes of
industrialization. We do not want to give the impression that the agrarian
reform program is the terminal act. We want Congress to look at this as a
part
of the long-range process that ultimately could lead to some kind of
industrialization without suggesting the type of industrialization that shall
take
place.
MR. DAVIDE: That would not be the effect, Madam President, because I am
sure that the Committee on National Economy and Patrimony will have to
consider all
these. So, an integrated development plan would necessarily be under the
Article on National Economy and Patrimony, but I am sure it will take into
account
the provisions of social justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: We have already dropped the word integrated partly
because of its unsavory history.
MR. DAVIDE: Even so, may I request that Commissioner Villegas, who is
Chairman of the Committee on National Economy and Patrimony, be
recognized for a
particular opinion on this matter?
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, thank you.
As I said during the period of interpellations, I think the section is really
misplaced in the Article on Social Justice because the very question of
balance among agriculture, industry and other sectors is a technical question
that has to be addressed by a planning body or the legislature at a very
specific moment of time. I do not think that it is a question of justice or
injustice being committed. That is why, as I mentioned, Section 1 of the
Article on the National Economy and Patrimony states the following:
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy. The
goals of the national economy are more equitable distribution of income and
wealth, full employment of humane, physical and technological resources
and sustained increase in the amount of goods and service produced by the
nation
for the benefit of the Filipino people.
So, that addresses already the issue of whether or not we will produce goods
for the basic needs of the people. It is stated very clearly that the goods,
whether they be agricultural or industrial, should be produced for the benefit
of the Filipino people, with priority to the welfare of the poor. In fact,
that is very explicitly stated here. In the attainment of these goals, all
economic sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to develop, and a
broader
ownership base of private enterprises shall be encouraged. So, the very
question of how to develop the various sectors is already addressed in this
Section
1 of the Article. That is why Section 9 is misplaced in the Article on Social
Justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: I do not think that the section just read refers to the idea of
linking the development of agriculture, fishing and marine resources,
specifically with the idea of the complementary process of industrialization.
No reference was made to the concept of a balanced agricultural and

industrial development. That is not the intent. We are merely suggesting that
in the process of doing reforms in agriculture, fishing and marine resources,
we should not forget the objective of meeting the basic needs of the people,
and eventually also the process of industrialization. It has happened that in
the process of developing agriculture, fishing and marine resources, the
primary consideration has been to respond to the demands of the external
market at
the expense of meeting basic needs such as food. And so, we are saying that
it is a matter of social justice that in the process of agricultural, fishing
and marine development, we should respond to the domestic needs of
consumption rather than the needs of the export market.
We are saying that the proceeds from this development, as well as the
proceeds from export, should be plowed back to agriculture and industry. But
we are
not suggesting a kind of balanced agro-industrial development because we
foresee the time that the development will take on a different course, even
including the tertiary sector.
MR. VILLEGAS: But a very explicit statement was already made, that all
goods produced in the nation shall be for the benefit of the Filipino people.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, but this could only refer to agricultural goods and not
industrial goods.
MR. VILLEGAS: No, goods mean all kinds of goods.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, but we want a specific linkage of the development
programs in agricultural, fishing and marine resources to meet our basic
needs, export
needs and the need for industrialization. What is important is not to give the
impression that agrarian reform is a terminal act. Without this provision,
pending the deliberation on the Ople proposal linking agrarian reform to
industrial development, one gets the impression that we are only interested
in
agrarian reform. The history of agrarian reform all over the world tells us that
the only successful agrarian reforms were linked with industrialization.
I think that also answers the apprehensions of many of us with respect to
inheritance. For instance, the question has been raised that what happens if
one
only has something like 10, 15, 20 or even 50 hectares and he has five,
seven or eight children? Eventually, we end up with very small plots that are
no
longer productive.
So, we are saying that if agrarian reform is accompanied by industrialization,

the labor surplus would be absorbed by the industrial sector and would not
necessarily result in fragmenting the already fragmented lands.
MR. VILLEGAS: I always have the impression that the body is very clear that
the agrarian reform program is not in any way incompatible with
industrialization. On the contrary, a lot of people are talking about how
former landowners who are now going to receive just compensation can
spend their
money on starting industries and other nonagricultural activities. I think that
was very, very clear in the minds of everyone. So, I really do not see any
danger in having a section on agrarian reform which would give the
impression that we are not interested also in industrialization. I do not see
the need
to make that linkage explicit.
MR. BENNAGEN: Our feeling is that it is necessary to put that here as a whole
package. So, maybe we can put that to a vote.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Before we put it to a vote, Commissioner Rosario Braid would
like to be recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, should Section 9 were to remain in
the Article on Social Justice, may I offer an amendment which will read: THE
STATE
SHALL PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL, FISHING AND
MARINE RESOURCES TO MEET THE BASIC NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE
PARTICULARLY THE SUBSISTENCE SECTORS AND
THE PROMOTION OF SMALL- AND MEDIUM-SCALE ENTERPRISES TO ACHIEVE
THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OBJECTIVE OF THE COUNTRY.
This is really to transpose the words small- and medium-scale enterprises
from Section 10 and also to focus on the importance of the so-called
alternative economy or underground economy of the underprivileged
subsistence sectors.
MR. ROMULO: So, Madam President, may I ask that we vote on the Davide
amendment first?
THE PRESIDENT: We will have to resolve the Davide amendment first, and
then if the body resolves to keep Section 9 in the Article on Social Justice, the
amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid can be taken up.
So, are we now ready to vote on the proposed amendment of Commissioner

Davide? Commissioner Davide seeks to transpose Section 9 of the Article on
Social
Justice to the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. The reasons have
been explained particularly by Commissioner Villegas who is the Chairman of
the
Committee on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, we are willing to transpose Section 9 to
the Article on National Economy and Patrimony provided the idea already
expressed
in Section 1 of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony will be so
expanded as to accommodate the spirit of Section 9, of course, on the
assumption
that the Ople amendment will also be considered part of the Article since
that takes care of the idea of linking agrarian reform with industrialization in
a very precise sense.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Villegas be recognized, Madam
President.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, I think it can be incorporated in Section 1 and we will
welcome specific amendments when the occasion arises.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the Committee on Social Justice can prepare its
recommendation as to how the same will be drafted. How about the
statement regarding
Commissioner Oples amendment?
MR. MONSOD: We have also discussed with Commissioner Ople the
transposition of certain ideas introduced in the Article on Social Justice which
are more
appropriate in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. And I think he
is amenable to that provided that some ideas are incorporated in the Article
on Social Justice which specifically refer to marginal or small fishermen. So,
that has already been discussed among the proponents.
THE PRESIDENT: So, with the manifestation then of the Committee with
respect to the transposition of Section 9 to the Article on National Economy
and
Patrimony, the amendment of Commissioner Davide should be considered

withdrawn.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it was accepted by the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it accepted by the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
Commissioner Davide with respect to Section 9 which has been accepted by
the Committee?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, will Commissioner Ople manifest that he
agrees with the statement of the Committee?
I do manifest my concurrence to the Committees proposal to transfer to the
Article on National Economy and Patrimony the national context with respect
to
the exclusive reservation for the exploitation of our marine wealth by Filipino
citizens especially the small fishermen. But ahead of that, Madam
President, if I am now in the appropriate place, in behalf of the Committee
which has indicated its prior agreement, I would like to read a modified
amendment of Section 8. It is actually a joint formulation of the Committee
and the proponent. After the clause protection, development and
conservation
of such resources, add the following: THE PROTECTION SHALL EXTEND TO
THE OFFSHORE FISHING GROUNDS OF SMALL FISHERMEN FROM FOREIGN
INTRUSION.
With respect to the words municipal fishermen and after taking counsel
with Commissioner Rodrigo, we felt that SMALL FISHERMEN would be more
appropriate
because there are parts of the country, for example, in Bulacan, which might
be understood by municipal fishermen to refer to the Propios or the
municipal fishponds owned by the municipal governments for their income.
So, if the Committee accepts that change, I. would submit it, Madam
President.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, the Committee accepts.

MR. DE CASTRO: Point of clarification, Madam President. In Section 8, we
used the term marginal fishermen; now we are using small fishermen.
Yesterday, I made a reservation to look into the meaning of marginal. If the
honorable President will allow me, I am ready to explain this.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know the result of the Commissioners research?
MR. DE CASTRO: It is not exactly a research. It is just getting the full meaning
of marginal which was used as an adjective to fishermen. When we say
marginal, we mean a margin close to the limit; and more, particularly, in
business it is referred to as marginal profit or marginal cost. But if I were
to get the thinking is that the meaning of marginal is one living almost
within the margin of the standard of living, then because if it is used as an
adjective, such as in marginal fisherman, he could be a fisherman today
but a laborer tomorrow because he is within the margin of being a fisherman
or
something else. So, if the Committees thinking is that the meaning of
marginal is one living almost within the margin of the standard of living, then
perhaps it may be used. My objection is the use of small fishermen and
marginal fishermen in the same section. I suggest that the Committee use
the
same term in this section.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in the interest of style, I think we need not be
bound to one uniform word that is repeated everytime the concept of a small
fisherman or a marginal one must be reflected. If Commissioner de Castro
considers small fishermen as being synonymous with marginal
fishermen, then I
think the problem will not arise.
We will just address a few clarificatory questions to the Honorable Ople.
When we speak of marginal, as correctly pointed out by the Honorable de

Castro, it connotes the meaning of a standard of living; and when we speak
of
small, we are referring to size. Upon the other hand, when we speak of
municipal, we are thinking in terms of a unit. That is why, for purposes of
the
record, it is necessary to give meaningful interpretations to these three
terms as they are applied in the provisions of the Article on Social Justice,
because the words marginal and small may be interchangeable but not
in connection with municipal. Is my understanding of the differentiation
among
these three terms correct?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I think, if we were to look for the widest
common denominator to all of these modifiers of fishermen marginal
in the sense
that he stands at the very margin of existence, he stands on the very edge of
life referring to his income and the needs of his family; and then the
concept of municipal fisherman? which has all the jurisprudential support
because this is really the technical term, except that this is geography-bound
then the common denominator would be small fishermen. It is in that
sense that this word is proposed to be used in the amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, is the Commissioner suggesting that we
employ the term small?
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, when we talk of the word marginal, it is
quite clear that everyone is thinking not of the act of fishing but the
economic
situation of the fisherman. I think that is a common understanding. As an
alternative, the phrase subsistence fisherman, which was earlier suggested
by
Commissioner Rosario Braid, is completely unambiguous. It is understood
that one is referring to what Commissioner Natividad mentioned as isang
kahig,
isang tuka.
MR. OPLE: I am willing to accept the amendment, Madam President, so that
the word subsistence becomes the common denominator that I had spoken
of
earlier.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: As long as the small fishermen are accorded protection, we would
abide by that word: subsistence.
THE PRESIDENT: So, that is accepted.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would Commissioner Ople yield to a question on his
amendment on Section 8? Would this include protection from commercial
fishermen in
terms of complying with the seven-kilometer ban on commercial vessels?
There is an existing ban on commercial vessels within seven kilometers from
the
shoreline.
MR. OPLE: The seven-kilometer ban is an administrative law that more or less
fixed an arbitrary legal distance from the shoreline. Although my
understanding of the seven-kilometer ban from the shore is that this is
flexible because the coastlines of the country are not uniform in terms of the
appropriateness of a seven-kilometer distance, the assumption is that in
many cases, the fishing grounds within seven kilometers are most accessible
to the
small, municipal or marginal or subsistence fishermen and that, therefore, no
heavy trawlers, whether Filipino or foreign, should be allowed to fish in
those waters. In this respect, I am not sure that commercial fishing vessels of
Filipino citizens are banned.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask Commissioner Ople if his intent is really not to
protect small fishermen even though they may not be subsistence
fishermen? For
example, in the case he mentioned in Zambales, I have been acquainted
with them having worked there. There are fishermen who are not subsistence
fishermen
in the sense that they are not isang kahig, isang tuka. They can be rather
prosperous, and yet they would still need protection from foreign intrusion
which the Gentleman is speaking about. And if he simply spoke of the
subsistence fishermen, he would not be looking after the interest of a great
portion
of our Filipino population who would be reduced to the subsistence level if
foreign intrusion were allowed to continue. At present, because they are able
to fish, they are not in the subsistence level yet.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the phrase subsistence fishermen should be
used liberally in the sense that it should not be restricted to the poorest
fishermen who are on the edge of existence day to day and who will perish if
they do not fish tomorrow. I think it is a mistake to impute to many of our
fishermen in places like Iba, Zambales the idea that they are rich fishermen.
We are talking about varying degrees of self-sufficiency. There are no
commercial or industrial nabobs in Iba, Zambales. Some fishermen may be a
little bit more affluent than the others, but by the standard of the really big
commercial fishing vessels, they are all subsistence fishermen. And so, the
intent of the proposal is almost all-encompassing with respect to real and
actual fishermen in the area who fish for a living.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote on the amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: I wonder if Commissioner Ople or the Committee will
accept the perfecting amendment by changing the word from to AGAINST. I
was thinking it
might be more emphatic. So, it would read AGAINST foreign intrusion.
MR. OPLE: I will have no objection, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote on this particular amendment?
MS. NIEVA: We are ready now for the voting.
Commissioner Ople and the others, which was accepted by the Committee?
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, just for clarity.

MR. BENNAGEN: When we use the word subsistence, as a logical process,
we also protect the interests of the small fishermen and this protection is not
excluded by the use of the word subsistence, which we should look at as
small but through a kind of sociological and historical process, could be
progressive but still small in relation to an ever-increasing scale of
production.
MR. OPLE: Yes. And we do not intend to penalize them for their efficiency and
success.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And so, I think it was in that context that I accepted the
explanation of Commissioner Bacani earlier.
MR. BENNAGEN: It is also the sense that we should give the word marginal
a sociological and historical process. What is marginal at some point could be
progressive at a future time but still marginal.
MR. OPLE: Yes, it is in that relative sense that we deliberately employ the
words subsistence fishermen.
BISHOP BACANI: In relation to the use of whatever word, our Chairman, while
we were discussing briefly, pointed out that this does not mean that we will
not protect the other fishermen as well. We are just emphasizing that we will
protect the subsistence fishermen and, in the process, protect the interest
of Filipino fishermen as well.
MR. OPLE: Yes, that consequence follows, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Can we have the amendment before we vote, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Will the Chairman please read the sentence.
MS. NIEVA: The sentence will read: THE PROTECTION SHALL EXTEND TO THE
OFFSHORE FISHING GROUNDS OF SUBSISTENCE FISHERMEN AGAINST
FOREIGN INTRUSION.
Can we now proceed to vote on the entire Section 8?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, there are still two registered speakers for
amendments on Section 8. I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, relative to the statement of Commissioner
Ople that the word municipal which has a technical meaning cannot be
understood
or can be misunderstood by our common people, I propose the following
amendment on line 4, on the phrase particularly municipal fishing grounds:
delete
the word municipal and in lieu thereof insert COMMUNAL; after grounds,
delete the period (.) and add FOR SMALL FISHERMEN, so that that phrase
would
read: particularly COMMUNAL fishing grounds FOR SMALL FISHERMEN.
MR. MONSOD: We just want to ask Commissioner Rodrigo that if one were to
read the entire first part would there be a redundancy? We are talking about
the
protection of the rights of subsistence fishermen especially those from local
communities to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing
resources, both inland and offshore, and now we will also sa
particularly . . . What is the word, Madam President?
MR. RODRIGO: COMMUNAL. I will have no objection.
MR. MONSOD: Would it be repetitive?
MR. RODRIGO: My only objection here is the use of the word municipal
because municipal fishing grounds can be misunderstood. As
Commissioner Ople has
said, in my home province of Bulacan, his hometown, the Municipality of
Hagonoy, owns fishponds. I know that the Municipality of Paombong also
owns
fishponds. I know that the Municipality of Paombong also owns fishponds
called Propios. And so, when fishermen or people in Bulacan read
municipal
fishing grounds, they will think that these refer to fishponds owned by the
municipality, which is not the case.
MR. MONSOD: That is true.
MR. RODRIGO: But if the Committee will agree to the deletion of the whole
phrase, I will have no objection.
MR. MONSOD: We think we see the problem there. May we ask Commissioner
Ople, from whom this came from in the first place the other day when he
wanted to
make particular mention of municipal fishing grounds whether the use of
the words the communal marine and fishing resources in the previous line
already covered the intention he had the other day?
MR. OPLE: Yes. I do not think there is any intention to refer to the municipal
Propios of the coastal towns of Bulacan, Madam President. On the point
raised by Commissioner Rodrigo, the concern is really about the popular
perception of what will mean in some parts of the country, including Bulacan,
although I would like to assure Commissioner Rodrigo that this phenomenon
known as the municipal Propios so far, according to my best knowledge, is
still
unique to the coastal towns of Bulacan, meaning, this is an innovative
municipal income scheme which is not yet shared in other parts of the
country. So,
if there is any danger of popular misunderstanding, it will be confined to
those towns in Bulacan that Commissioner Rodrigo has earlier enumerated.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the Committee intend to delete the whole phrase
particularly municipal fishing grounds?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we are asking this clarificatory question. If the words
communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore already
would
include the idea of municipal fishing grounds, then this particular phrase may
be deleted to avoid misunderstanding.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think so, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: So, I modify my amendment to delete the phrase particularly

municipal fishing grounds.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts.
MR. OPLE: My only difficulty, Madam President, is that if the term municipal
fishermen which has a very rich legal foundation in jurisprudence, it being
the precise legal term, is encountered elsewhere in the Constitution, will
Commissioner Rodrigo still raise the same concern and anxiety?
MR. RODRIGO: We understand the technical meaning of municipal, but let
us not forget that this Constitution will be submitted to the people in a
plebiscite and they may not understand municipal fishing grounds. They
might think that these are fishponds belonging to the municipality or these
are
fishing grounds if within the area of the municipality, which is not the
intended meaning of municipal in this phrase.
MR. OPLE: So, in that context, I am glad to support the proposal of
Commissioner Rodrigo, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you. As we said before, we accede to the deletion of the
phrase particularly municipal fishing grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: The whole phrase will be deleted?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the deletion of the clause
particularly municipal fishing grounds from Section 8? (Silence) The Chair
hears
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I would like to propose to the
Committee to include within the ambit of protection what is known as fish
workers or the
kasama ng mga mangingisda.
I discovered from Commissioner Quesada and also from some complaints of

small fishermen that in the same way that there is the sharing system or
kasama
system in agricultural lands, there is also such a thing among the small
fishermen who, it would appear, are actually the most exploited class of
fishermen, even more exploited than the marginal fishermen that we were
talking about. And this kasama fishermen who comprise 45,000 of the total
work
force of commercial fishing operations are the former subsistence fishermen
who were dislocated by the monopolizing and superior commercial
operations of
the big fishermen who own boats and all that. Thus, they find no alternative
but to join the operations as fish workers Their daily income is only about
P5.00 a day, because like the kasama in agricultural land, all expenses are
deducted from their share and this sharing arrangement, which is prevalent
in
municipal and commercial fishing, does put these fish workers or the kasama
or small fishermen at a great disadvantage. And this is true in Bulacan,
Sorsogon, Danao, Cavite, Laguna Lake, and others including Albay.
And so, my proposal, subject to style, of courses is to include a sentence
somewhere in Section 8 that fish workers shall receive a just share of their
labor in the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources. We shall include fish
workers in the same manner that we included farmers, regular farm workers
and
seasonal farm workers in the agrarian reform Thus, we protect everybody.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will the Commissioner from Laguna yield to a
question?
MR. OPLE: If these are the workers of commercial fishing vessels, should they
not fall under the labor provision of the Article on Social Justice?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Ordinarily, they should fall under the provisions on labor,
but from my knowledge, they are not covered by existing labor laws.
MR. OPLE: I would like to assert, Madam President, that there is no ground
whatsoever why they should not be covered by labor laws when there is a
very
clear employer-employee relationship in commercial fishing operations.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, for the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee would like to be enlightened on the basis of a

specific and expressed proviso that would address this particular group.
Specifically, how significant is the group that Commissioner de los Reyes is
referring to in terms of number? How significant are they as far as the
specificity of their demands is concerned because, offhand, our perception is
that they could be rightfully covered under farm workers or,
parenthetically, the labor law might apply if there is an employer-employee
relationship.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But, as found in the book Countryside Report by Lusa
Research Staff which focused on five major industries: rice, coconut, sugar,
fishing
and abaca, basnig workers alone or trawl workers comprise 45,000 of the
total work force of commercial fishing operations and there are those who
merely
rent small motorized bancas. It is true that these workers could be covered
ordinarily by the provisions on labor, but then there is no specific mention of
small fish workers. Inasmuch as we are discussing aquatic reform in the
same way that we have given protection not only to tenant farmers but to
regular
farm workers which, as explained, refer to wage farm workers, as well as
seasonal farm workers, I believe there is also a necessity for specifying
protection to fish workers.
MR. OPLE: The term fish workers appears for the first time in the
vocabulary of labor. This can refer to the workers assisting fish vendors in
Divisoria,
for example.
MR. DE LOS REYES: According to this definition, it includes bugadores,
referring to fish haulers; maniniklis, fish sorters; and pescadores, fish haulers
and sorters.
MR. OPLE: So, these are workers in the commercial fishing industry. The fish
worker, who is undoubtedly valid in the context of this survey which looks
like a socioeconomic survey, has gained no definite meaning in law and
jurisprudence, unlike municipal fishermen. But, apparently, they exist as a
class;
or better yet as a subclass of the huge underclass of subsistence fishermen. I
do not know if the concern of Commissioner de los Reyes should be
accommodated specifically, or the Committee might want to record very
clearly and definitively the intent of Section 8 as being able to embrace the
problems and the need for social justice of this subclass of the fishing
underclass.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, although we can always place on

record that Section 8 embraces fish workers, yet if it is not specifically
provided in
the Constitution, it will amount to nothing useful to these fish workers. These
fish workers are usually hired on a temporary and contractual basis. They
have no security of employment, for which reason their employment is
hanging. Because of this, trawl owners maintain a firm hold over them. They
are also
being forced to do other jobs like painting and repairing of fishing gears
without pay, and they are even obliged to dry fish for free. In other cases
where the workers become physically disabled, the owner automatically
retires him from his job without any compensation whatsoever, with no social
security
compensation. Therefore, although there has been no jurisprudence yet
which states that there is such a thing as fish worker, I find nothing wrong in
starting it now in this Constitution which we are promulgating. That is why
we are revising and amending this Constitution to inject ideas. And since we
are already in the process of protecting all marginal people, all people who
are on the subsistence level we have given protection to industrial labor;
we have given protection to farm workers I certainly find nothing
objectionable in emphasizing also the rights of aquatic workers.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I be allowed to ask some questions?
MR. LERUM: Commissioner de los Reyes spoke of exploitation. Who are
exploiting these so-called fish workers? Do they have employers?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The owners of motorized bancas, the owners of the
trawlers employ these people who are not given their just wage.
MR. LERUM: In that case, they are covered by the labor provision of this
section. That is why I ask: Who are exploiting these people? If the
Commissioner
says that their employers are exploiting them, then there is the so-called
employer-employee relationship and this is covered by the social justice
provision that we are talking about now.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But even under the existing Labor Code, agricultural
laborers are included, and yet this Commission found it necessary to classify
agricultural workers as a different group. So, if the Gentlemans reasoning
will be followed, there would have been no necessity to place in this report of
the Committee on Social Justice any provision specifically dealing with
agrarian reform, because agricultural laborers, like those laborers working in

big
haciendas, sugar mills and agri-business types like Canlubang, for example,
are actually covered by the labor laws. I think the Gentleman knows that
very
well because he is the lawyer of the labor union in Canlubang. But we still
provided for a separate section on agrarian reform to emphasize the rights in
particular of land workers. And now, this proposal is an attempt also to
emphasize the rights of the small fish workers, because in our desire to help
the
marginal fishermen or those who actually catch fish, we forget the fish
workers.
MR. LERUM: May I call the Gentlemans attention to what we have already
approved. We have provided for a living wage, and since this class of workers
is
covered, then they are entitled to a living wage. Maybe the trouble is in the
implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code. Maybe these people are
not organized, and so they are subject to exploitation.
MR. DE LOS REYES: They are forgotten. But if we place this in the
Constitution, they will no longer be forgotten because our attention will be
called to
their specific plight. That is the sense.
MR. LERUM: They are not really forgotten because we are trying to organize
them. As a matter of fact, we are now going into the organization of workers
in
fishing boats. But always there is that apathy on the part of the workers that
it is better if they are not organized because if they are, they are afraid
that immediately after organization, many of them will be dismissed. We
have to remove this obstacle. But with regard to the Gentlemans concern, I
can
assure him that these workers are already covered by the provision on labor
in the Article on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is seeking recognition.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. Thank you, Madam President.
In the definition of fish workers, did Commissioner de los Reyes also include
the kasama ng maliliit na mangingisda?
MR. DF LOS REYES: That is precisely the bulk of these fish workers.
MS. QUESADA: I think this particular group would differ from the commercial
fish workers because these kasama ng maliliit na mangingisda are those who
hire
out their services to small boat owners, who may or may not own a boat and
whose remuneration comes in the form of a share in the catch after all the
expenses in the production are deducted. This particular group, who would
be the equivalent of tenants, are not covered by the Labor Code because
they are
not considered workers but are called kasama. Is that then a part of the
definition of fish workers?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is not only a part but the bulk of the definition of fish
workers. But I did not state kasama anymore because kasama is usually
associated with agricultural tenancy operation.
MS. QUESADA: But they compose the majority of what we call municipal
fishermen.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Precisely, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Municipal fishermen in the Philippines, as of the 1982 data of
the Countryside Report, comprise 72 percent or 574,000 of those employed
in the
fishing industry alone.
MR. MONSOD: We support the sentiment behind the proposal of
Commissioner de los Reyes. Some members of the Committee, however, feel
that once we start
enumerating, we might be excluding. For example, how do we treat the
workers in poultry farms? What about the helpers in sari-sari stores who are
exploited
by the owners particularly foreign or Chinese store owners? We can go on
and on and we are afraid that we might then go into too much detail for a
Constitution.
However, I believe that the answer of Commissioner Lerum that they are
deemed included in the Article on Social Justice might be adequate for
Commissioner
de los Reyes.
THE PRESIDENT: How about Commissioner Maambong?

Will Honorable de los Reyes entertain a question regarding his proposed
amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Gladly.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am constrained to rise because I come from an area
where there are trawlers and pulse seiners. I would like to inform the
honorable
Commissioner that in that area, most of the workers in trawlers and purse
seiners are paid under a share system in the sense that whatever catch the
trawler or the purse seiner will get, they have a certain percentage. And
while they are at sea, they are given subsistence and that is charged to their
share. That is in general terms.
There are also trawl owners who really pay then wages, just like what
Commissioner Lerum has said, and probably those persons are covered by
the Labor Code
My question is this: Is the proposed amendment directed to those fishing
workers in trawlers or purse seiners who are paid on a share system? And is
the
proposed amendment also intended to cover those using the same kind of
fishing methods and who are paid under the system covered by the Labor
Code? Are
both these employees or shareholders of these fishing vessels covered?
MR. DE LOS REYES: They are covered. But as I was saying, although it is true
that ordinarily they should I covered under the Labor Code, the fact of the
matter is that we concentrate our minds and energies on industrial laborers.
The labor leaders do not have time for these small fish workers.
MR MAAMBONG: As I said, I am concerned because most of the people living
in my area, in the towns of Asturias, Tuburan and Balamban, are actually
working
in these trawlers, and they feel oppressed also because in the sharing, they
only get so much of the catch, and if there is no catch at all sometimes
they do not have any catch at all they do not get anything. At the same
time, the expenses which they incur while they are on the vessel keep on
growing
every day, especially the subsistence; and that is why I also share this
concern.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we request a vote?
MR. ROMULO: May we have the amendment, Madam President, and then the
vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The general concern seems to be that the matter proposed
by Commissioner de los Reyes can be the subject of legislation, rather than
being
placed in the Constitution. So then, will Commissioner de los Reyes read his
proposed amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President. Subject to style and relocation, it
will read: FISHWORKERS SHALL RECEIVE A JUST SHARE OF THEIR LABOR IN
THE
ENJOYMENT OF MARINE AND FISHING RESOURCES. That is very simple.
VOTING
Commissioner de los Reyes, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their
hand.)
hand.)
approved.
MR ROMULO: Madam President, there are no further registered speakers. I
believe it is time to vote on Section 8 as a whole.
MS. NIEVA: Can we have the last sentence again, because there have been
so many changes?
MS. AQUINO: Is there any definite formulation here?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, he had an amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes?
MS. NIEVA: We would like to have the amendment of Commissioner de los
Reyes again.
MR. ROMULO: Having won a victory, he has disappeared.

THE PRESIDENT: I have a copy.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner de los Reyes give his amendment which he
just won?
THE PRESIDENT: We are giving a copy of the proposed amendment to the
Chairman.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The new sentence will read: Fishworkers shall receive a
just share of their labor in the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources.
MR. DE LOS REYES: As amended by Commissioner Ople, the sentence will
read: Fishworkers shall receive a just share of THE FRUITS of their labor.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, with due respect to Commissioner de los
Reyes, without intending to overturn the whole thing in the body, is he
definite in
that formulation because the impression we got is that he wanted it placed
somewhere in Section 8 as a concept. Or should we place it as it is now
formulated?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, because Section 8 refers to marine and fishing
resources. If we will repeat the words marine and fishing resources, there
will be
redundancy. That is why I said this is subject to style. But as reworded now, it
conveys the idea that we sought for.
THE PRESIDENT: Will it be the last sentence of the section?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It could be the last. No, I think it should be before the last
sentence because the Ople amendment refers to intrusion of foreign
investments.
MR. ROMULO: So, what is the amendment now? It seems to me we voted on
something else.
THE PRESIDENT: It is just in placing it; that is only the form.
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is already the problem of Commissioner Rodrigo.
(Laughter)

THE PRESIDENT: In the meantime, can we have it on the last sentence while
the Committee on Style decides where to put it?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, just a point of clarification. Are employers of
trawlers included in fish workers?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, that is the explanation.
MR. MONSOD: Also employees of large fishing companies?
MR. DE CASTRO: Point of inquiry, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Are we still amending what we have voted upon?
THE PRESIDENT: No, those are just clarifications.
MR. DE CASTRO: Or are we making some clarifications on what a fish worker
is because there was an amendment by Commissioner Ople that we have
voted upon?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes
MR. MONSOD: I think the Committee is being asked for purposes of styling in
rewriting the sentence. We just want to know what is included because that
might be of help to the drafters of the sentence.
For example, I have a question: Would workers in fish canneries be included
in the word fish workers?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think they are industrial workers.

MR. MAAMBONG: I would just like to ask Commissioner de los Reyes a
clarificatory question.
MR. MAAMBONG: Would it not dilute his approved amendment if we use the
words fishing workers because I feel that the term fishworkers is not
really . .
.
MR. DE LOS REYES: What word does the Gentleman want?
MR. MAAMBONG: Fishing workers.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Fishing workers?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. If it would dilute the intention, I will not press. I am just
asking this question.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I am not a grammarian; if fishing workers is better, it
means the same thing; it refers to fish.
MR. BENGZON: Can we not leave that to the Committee on Style?
MR. MAAMBONG: We can leave that to the Committee then.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, let us have some order, please. There being
some changes, I believe the Chair will submit the whole motion again to a
vote
because we do not know anymore what has been voted upon.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President. I think if w do not get the precise
definition of fish workers, then the whole voting process would be
misunderstood.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair will call for a suspension of the session for a few
minutes. And Commissioner de los Reyes will please approach the
Committee so
to clarify this matter.
It was 11:08 a.m.
Before we suspended the session, the Chair already indicated its reaction to
the voting that there has been some confusion on the issues involved in
the
proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes. So, shall we have
Commissioner de los Reyes read again his proposed amendments?
Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Point of order, Madam President. I am all confused in this forest of
amendments. I thought we had already finished the interpellation, and were
supposed to be in the period of amendments. But then, we were questioning
each other and amending and debating. That is why we got confused. And
then, this
fish story came in. It did not pass the Committee; it was not in the
interpellation and we are supposed to vote. It is all confusing.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is Commissioner de los Reyes?
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner de los Reyes has sought refuge somewhere
else.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have his proposed amendment as reworded or
whatever, submitted.
Will Commissioner de los Reyes please state his proposed amendment
because the Chair has resolved to submit it to another voting in view of the
confusion
of some of the Members?
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I ask the Secretariat to read what has been
approved?
THE PRESIDENT: What we have here, the first version reads: Fishworkers
shall receive a just share from their labor in the enjoyment of marine and
fishing
resources. Then it was amended by Commissioner Ople, and it now reads:
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from THE FRUITS of their labor. Is this
last statement correct?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I just agreed to the Ople suggestion
because I thought that this is just a matter of style. But if that amendment
will
cause confusion which will warrant another voting I will just stick by my
former amendment and reject the Ople amendment. And I respectfully object
to
another voting because we have already won by a slight margin and we have
worked hard for that amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So then the provision reads: Fishworkers shall receive a just
share from their labor in the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources.
Were there some questions being propounded by members of the
Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: I voted in favor of the amendment but on deeper reflection, I
realize that it is rather very confusing especially with the clarifications made
later. So I am seeking for a reconsideration of the approval of the proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion for reconsideration of
Commissioner Davide just to eliminate all forms of confusion over this
particular amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved and the matter is again submitted to the body.
Is there any further question from the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: May we request a vote, Madam President?
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I know from Commissioner Davide what particular
answer to the interpellation caused the confusion?
MR. DAVIDE: The confusion arose out of the admission by the Commissioner
that fish workers would even apply to the so-called employees of big
business
engaged in fishing.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Not canneries, Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE: For instance, trawlers or purse seiners, or employees engaged
as such would be considered fish workers. To my mind, they should be
covered by
the ordinary rules on labor legislation under which they would enjoy better
benefits. Now, if we will reduce their category to that of an ordinary fish
worker entitled only to a just share in the fruits of their labor, we would be
treating them in a much lower category and, therefore, we would be
reducing
the benefits that they would be entitled to.
My understanding of the original proposal for which reason I voted was that
they would refer still to the so-called marginal fish workers who, in certain
areas like Southern Cebu, may become, in effect, partners in a bigger
enterprise owned by the privileged class.
And so, I feel that we must have to distinguish the particular class of fish
workers, whether fish workers of big capitalists or fish workers engaged only
in marginal fishing.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Am I to understand that fish workers employed by big
capitalists are not exploited?
MR. DAVIDE: They are exploited, but we have the labor laws which will apply
to them, and we have approved already the subdivision on labor.
MR. DE LOS REYES: This proposal covers what the Commissioner envisions.
The fishing workers in Cebu are suffering under the exploitation of trawl
operators, but if it includes also big-time capitalists, what is wrong in stating
that fishing workers shall receive a just share of their labor?
MR. DAVIDE: That is the problem, because with a separate provision for
them, it may be construed as making a separate provision for them with the
possible
interpretation that they are no longer within the scope of the provision on
labor where the ordinary laborers really have greater benefits, advantages
and
privileges.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may the Committee be recognized?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I believe that this matter has been
discussed for almost an hour now. May we request a vote because all the
arguments have
already been ventilated in this body?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It was discussed, and we already won by two or three
votes. The discussion has been prolonged because there was a motion for
reconsideration. I already explained that this refers to kasama ng maliliit na
mangingisda or simply kasama.
I yield to the Chair.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment reads: FISHWORKERS SHALL RECEIVE A
JUST SHARE FROM THEIR LABOR IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF MARINE AND
FISHING RESOURCES.
Those in favor of this particular proposed amendment will please raise their
Those against will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
approved.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I go out, Madam President. I was about to answer a
phone call when I was called.
MR. ROMULO: Perhaps we can now vote on Section 8 as a whole, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Will the Chairman read the entire section as drafted.
The body will notice that since we had many enumerations in the second
part, we have changed some of the punctuation marks. Section 8 reads as
follows:
The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing
resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such
fishermen through appropriate technology, research, financial, production
and
marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect,
develop and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to the
offshore
fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion Fish
workers shall receive a just share from their labor in the enjoyment of marine
and
fishing resources
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President
MR. DAVIDE: I just would like to invite the attention of the Committee that
before provide in the second sentence, there is the word also; and before
financial, there should be and adequate, which were not read.
MS. NIEVA: The reason we removed the first also is that this was such a
long enumeration that we felt we could cut some of the sentences.
MR. DAVIDE: It is all right, but what about the words and adequate?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. It should read adequate financial.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the entire Section 8 as read by the
Chairman of the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the whole
section
is approved.
MR. ROMULO: There are no more sections under Agrarian Land Reform to
be amended. I ask the Committee if it would now like to take up the Colayco
amendment on the section on labor.
MS. NIEVA: May I just comment that the complete title is Agrarian and
Natural Resources Reform.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, apropos of this, may I reserve the right,
together with Commissioner Bennagen, immediately afterwards, to propose
an amendment,
consisting of a new section under the group of sections denominated as
Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I am asking the Committee if it would now
like to take up the Colayco amendment.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Since the Committee agrees, Madam President, I ask that
Commissioner Colayco be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: That refers to Section 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
I realize that since my proposal I have become persona non grata to some
members of the Committee. I want to assure them that in pushing for this
amendment
I share their sentiment for the cause of labor and that I am acting from a firm
conviction that it will improve not only the form of our Constitution but,
at the same time, enhance the cause of labor. Surely, personally, I do not
think that in pushing for this reform, I am doing labor a disservice.
The body will notice that Section 3 starts like this: It shall be the duty of the
State to afford full protection to labor, and then it proceeds to
enumerate the different rights which have been granted to the workers
under current legislation. All these rights are enumerated in paragraphs (a),
(b) and
(c). When Commissioner Aquino interpellated me and asked me why this
enumeration was felt to be necessary, she explained that it was the intention
of the
Committee to elevate the laws that have provided for these benefits to labor
to a constitutional level. I have no quarrel with that, and I am sure that
everybody else would like to afford to labor every possible protection
available under our law. My reservation, as I expressed earlier, is that there
would
seem to be no need for this enumeration because these laws are a full
guarantee, as they stand, for the protection of these rights are already in our
law
books.
But, as I mentioned earlier, we cannot ignore the growing complaint, if not
attack, against the way we are formulating our Constitution, to the effect
that
we are unnecessarily using too many words, too many sentences, too many
paragraphs which could be compressed probably in one or two sentences.

And this
particular comment is applicable to this present section. If the purpose of the
Committee is to guarantee the rights heretofore granted by law to labor, we
can do that in one sentence and, at the same time, accomplish what it wants
us to do to elevate the protection to labor to a constitutional level. And
so, I came out with the first sentence which takes care of this. My proposal is
for the first sentence to read like this: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL THE
RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW TO WORKERS. That simple sentence is a
mandate to future Congress. Do not touch; do not clip; do not diminish; do
not repeal any
of the laws which have been granted or which have been approved for the
protection of labor. We cannot ask for a more emphatic and clear mandate to
Congress to preserve, to maintains to protect all the rights granted by the
law. As to the last sentence in paragraph (b), the Committee wants to
emphasize, among other rights, the right of labor to participate in policy- and
decision-making processes affecting its interest. This is good but I think
my second sentence goes even beyond that because I say, PROMOTE
MUTUAL COOPERATION BETWEEN WORKERS AND THEIR EMPLOYERS this
is the important phrase
BASED ON SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. The words SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
mean nothing else but the right to share in decision-making after
consultation; and if we
want to go further, even the right to representation in the board.
These are concepts which may sound new to us, and I understand the
concern, even impatience, of my friend, Commissioner Foz, that we should
grant to labor
everything possible. But we are not yet attuned to these concepts, although
these concepts are now applied and accepted in other countries.
Nevertheless,
sooner or later, we will reach this. We will turn capital toward this. If I may
use a favorite Visayan saying which I have managed to learn: Hinay-hinay,
basta kanunay. Let us go easy; we will reach that, we will get it; impatience
will not help us nor will it help labor because we will only succeed in
antagonizing capital. Little by little our capitalists or employers are beginning
to understand that it is their duty to share the benefits of their
industries with labor.
The last paragraph, paragraph (d), of Section 3 says:
Regulate relations between workers and employers in a manner that
recognizes the primacy of the rights of labor to its just share and the
corresponding
rights of business enterprises to realize their growth potential and
reasonable returns on investments.
This is a very nice statement, but I believe it can be trimmed down. At first
I do not mind telling this body that I burned the midnight oil just to
compress this, and at the same time, to retain the purpose of the Committee
I was tempted to use the phrase decent living wage appearing in
paragraph
(b) of this article. The phrase decent living wage was first used in, I think,
the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII entitled, Rerum Novarum; living wage
includes not only food and recreation; but social and religious opportunities
not only for the worker but also for his wife and his family. But I did not
think that this was enough and so I came with this expression: AND ENSURE
THEIR JUST SHARE OF ALL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. The term fruits of
labor
covers not only their just wages and profit sharing, but also sharing in
ownership because all these are fruits of their labor.
So I believe that in compressing the four paragraphs into the three sentences
which I am proposing, I was able to retain the substance and the intent of
the Committee.
I am, therefore, requesting the Committee to accept my proposal to trim
down the wording of Section 3, and, if I may paraphrase the inimitable
colleague of
ours, Commissioner Uka: What is one word less among friends?
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: On behalf of the Committee, first, we deeply regret that we
cannot accept the proposal of Commissioner Colayco, although we view with
enthusiasm the introduction of a new concept of shared responsibility
which we could eventually want to incorporate in the draft. With due respect
to
Commissioner Colayco, we sincerely appreciate his concern; however, we are
deeply disturbed by this preoccupation with brevity. It is already some kind of
a short-lived atavism that is going a bit too far. The draft admittedly is too
long but it is long because it precisely reflects the gains that have been
made by the workers and the labor force in its thorough-going push-and-pull
struggle for the assertion of their rights. In fact, the gains have been
institutionalized in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The minute we scuttle
that, it amounts to no other interpretation but withdrawal. We could talk
ourselves blue in the face and insist for the record that there is no intention
to withdraw or diminish, but after they have been virtually
institutionalized in the two fundamental documents, it would amount to
nothing else than diminishment. It is our concern, because we have been

exposed in
the public hearings with the labor group, that all of the rights provided herein
are their barest minimum and irreducible demands. It is our fear that the
minute we touch it, history will judge us unkindly. The future generation will
judge us harshly. It is our concern that if we sacrifice the sanctity of the
mandate in the altar of brevity, we might end up scorned both ways.
MR. COLAYCO: May I answer?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. COLAYCO: I share the Commissioners concern for the laborers because
earlier, before I stood up, I tried to sound her out. I am referring now to
Commissioner Aquino. I tried to sound her out on how we could get some
possible compromise, but she said the laborers would be disappointed if this
litany
of rights is not spelled out. But without sounding critical, we are not a Code
Committee here. We are trying to frame a Constitution and we have to
observe
certain cardinal traditional norms which have been followed in almost all
Constitutions.
The Constitution of India has been mentioned; but remember, India has
millions and millions of people. We are only 55 million. That is why in the
composition of the Constitution of India, there are several sections which are
addressed to the different provinces and tribes, we might call them, which
compose the entire nation of India.
At any rate, I do not think that the statement that the State shall protect all
the rights granted by law to workers is a withdrawal from a higher or
better position I think that this concrete, clear statement is a clearer
mandate. Pardon me for citing a new statement on the question of brevity.
The
first quality, brevity, is to emphasize its uniqueness or distinctiveness in
relation to ordinary forms of lawmaking. A Constitution is after all, rather
different from a municipal ordinance on sewers and drains. A short text, by
its very simplicity can also be more readily comprehended by the general
public, and this facilitates national consensus building which is one of the
prime objectives of democratic constitutionalism.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, on behalf of the lay people in this
Constitutional Commission, I would also like to express our sentiment after
getting hold
of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Colayco.
We said that the Constitution we are drafting is going to be a new one that
would truly be reflective of the sentiments and aspirations of our people. We
would like this to be a Constitution which ordinary individuals nonlawyers,
farmers, workers, urban poor, fishermen, fish workers, women, and even
children can easily understand, so that when they read the Constitution
they do not have to dig up the Journal of the Commission to understand the
intentions.
For example, with the proposed amendment which says: THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW TO WORKERS, I, an
ordinary worker, would
not know just what these rights are if I have not even gotten hold of the
Labor Code and if I do not know how to read as good as professionals. So, I
would
not really know just what the new Constitution has provided this time.
In our prayers, we often say, Let those who have less in life have more in
law. If a worker would not get hold of this provision, then he would very well
ask, What has the new Constitution granted me? We say that labor has
already enjoyed some of these rights and we would like to define and
constitutionalize these rights which, as Commissioner Aquino has said,
workers have won through their struggles.
So I feel that we should not only be concerned with brevity. It was the
Commissioner himself who told me one day that he had researched on the
different
Constitutions and found out that not only India but many other countries
have expressed the provisions of their Constitutions in the way that ordinary
individuals would be able to understand. When we say it should be
something that the public would be able to understand, still this amendment
is not
something an ordinary individual would be able to understand. One would
have to refer to law books, Labor Code and to the minutes of this
Constitution to
find out just what are these rights referred to. So, I believe we should not
really be concerned about making this section brief.
Romanias Constitution had 105 Articles; Portugals, 29 pages and 143
Articles; Spains, 58 pages and 169 Articles; Swedens, 37 pages and 13
Chapters,
Switzerlands, 26 pages and 123 Articles and so had many other countries
constitutions. As a matter of fact, our Article on Social Justice is quite short
compared to the Article on the Executive which has 11 pages and the Article
on the Judiciary which has more.
In the overriding concern about brevity and broadness, we may overlook the
sentiments that went into the production of our work. So, we hope the
Commissioner understands our feelings about cutting down to size this
important article for many workers.
MR. COLAYCO: It is a good thing the Commissioner brought up my comments
to her earlier because to be honest with her, on my own, I undertook a little
research since I heard outside comments that this particular article was
rather lengthy. While I am not saying that I do not share the Commissioners
personal views notwithstanding what I told her and Chairman Nieva here who
sounded that I had become almost a traitor to her, I find this particular
section like an overloaded small vehicle.
Anyway, now that I have heard the comments and accepted the attitude of
the Committee, may I make one very unusual and special request. Madam
President, I
hope that I will not be misunderstood here again. I understand that there are
17 members in this Committee alone, so that they alone will be sufficient to
throw me to Kingdom Come insofar as this amendment is concerned. And I
know, too, that like everyone else, they would not have any trouble about
showing
where their opinion lies. However, I feel that to afford a better assurance of
freedom of expression of their choice, I would like to propose that the
voting on my proposal be by secret balloting.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Acting Floor Leader have anything to say?
BISHOP BACANI: Before we vote, let me just also add these two notes: First,
post factum after what we have done in the provision on agrarian reform
which
is also lengthy, to cut down this section on labor would now make its place in
the Constitution so disproportionately small. Second, I am not a
constitutional lawyer myself, but it seems to me that the cardinal rule in the
making of a constitution should be its responsiveness to the people. I do
not know whether we should follow a hard-and-fast rule regarding brevity
and conciseness. I think the principle here should be rather the common
good or
the common welfare. And it does not seem that the common welfare is
better served by making this already brief section briefer still.

MR. LERUM: May I be allowed to ask Commissioner Colayco some questions?
I understand that his purpose in proposing this amendment is to condense
the
provision of the proposed section which appears on the left of his proposal. Is
that correct?
MR. COLAYCO: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: In other words, as far as the Commissioner is concerned, he
does not object to any provision appearing on the left of his proposal, but his
only
intention is to condense the same in just a few words. Is that correct?
MR. COLAYCO: That is correct, I have no objection to the substance.
MR. LERUM: So what is the use of a secret voting now, just for the purpose of
condensing?
MR. COLAYCO: No, I mean there may be members of the Committee who
may have their own opinion about this different from the other members of
the Committee
and the same with the rest of the Commissioners here.
MR. LERUM: Does the Commissioner mean to tell us that there are some
Committee members who are afraid to expose their vote?
MR. COLAYCO: No, I am not saying that.
MR. LERUM: And also some Members of the Commission who are also afraid
to express their vote in public?
MR. COLAYCO: I am not saying that.
MR. LERUM: I am very blunt about this because I want to be very clear about
this portion. We are here representing our own sectors, and it is only correct
that our sectors should know how we voted.
MR. ROMULO: As an observation during our caucus, if the body will recall, we
did agree and approve that where the Committee does not accept an
amendment,
one may ask for a secret balloting.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Believing that the request of Commissioner Colayco is meritorious, the Chair
declares that such request is granted and that the voting on this proposed
amendment will be done by ballot.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I am making a record that I am against secret
voting on this proposal.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before we vote, Madam President, may I briefly speak
against the Colayco amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento may proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: This is from one who is not a member of the Committee on
Social Justice.
Madam President, the classic formula in constitution-making is that a
constitution should be clear, concise and comprehensive. But that classic
formula
should not be taken as a dogma. Constitution-making should respond to the
signs of the times, to the clamor of the people. The clamor is that rights
should
be enumerated for their information and satisfaction. For instance, Madam
President, I was with a group of workers and urban poor last night and they
were
very happy when they learned that they have these rights in our new
Constitution. To compress this Constitution, to eliminate all these rights
would, to
me, make our people unhappy. That, to them, would be a big letdown.
Dogmas and formulas should respond to the needs and the signs of the
times. So,
although I deeply appreciate the labors, the work of Justice Colayco, I appeal
to him also to consider the clamor, the wishes of our people.
THE PRESIDENT: Please distribute the ballots.

MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, before we proceed to vote, may I ask
Commissioner Colayco one or two questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes may proceed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The amendment says: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL
THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW. In other words, this refers to existing
laws and laws
that may be enacted.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Therefore, these laws could also be repealed or
amended. And if we amend these laws, we will lose all these rights
enumerated in Section
3 as proposed by the Committee.
MR. COLAYCO: That is correct. That is why my proposal says: THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT ALL RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW.
MR. DE LOS REYES: For example, there is a law which allows the workers to
strike or to engage in concerted activities, then another law can be passed to
repeal those rights.
MR. COLAYCO: Not if this sentence is approved.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Therefore, no law can be passed which shall remove all
these rights?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That will take a constitutional amendment to remove or
to take away from laborers all these enumerated rights.
MR. FOZ: I would like to oppose the amendment, and may I make a few
statements in connection with that.
The Colayco amendment would give primacy to legislative enactments by

saying that: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE
LAW TO THE
WORKERS.
As a matter of fact, the amendment here even footnotes referring to the
specific laws which the provision or the amendment would like the rights
granted to
be preserved. It bothers me because it would seem that the existing laws
regarding these rights of labor might not at all be subject to repeal or even to
amendment. In other words, there is an element here in the amendment that
would make it difficult for Congress even to change what is now provided in
existing laws.
If the Constitution would not specify the rights of labor, then what is the use
of such a provision? We might as well have no provision at all and just
depend on Congress to provide whatever are or should be the rights of labor.
I would like to remind my colleagues here that if we approve these
amendments as proposed, then we would do away not only with paragraphs
(b), (c) and (d),
but also with (a). This is an amendment by substitution to the entire section
on labor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do all Commissioners have copies of the provisions of
Section 3 as formulated by the Committee and which are sought to be
substituted by
Commissioner Colayco?
THE PRESIDENT: Now in voting, may I request some assistance from the
members of the Committee. What would they desire? Shall we vote
separately for each of
the sentences or shall we just vote for the entire substitution?
MS. NIEVA: I think it is the entire article.
MR. COLAYCO: It is the entire amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will vote on the entire amendment by substitution
of Commissioner Colayco which reads: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL THE
RIGHTS
GRANTED BY THE LAW TO WORKERS, PROMOTE MUTUAL COOPERATION
BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR EMPLOYERS BASED ON SHARED RESPONSIBILITY,

AND ENSURE THEIR JUST SHARE IN
THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. If approved, it will substitute for Section 3,
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Committees draft.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam Chairman, if we are for the amendment, we vote
yes; and if we are against the amendment, we vote no. Is that it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if the Commissioner is for the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Colayco, put yes; if he is against, put no.
VOTING
At this juncture, ballot forms were distributed to the Commissioners. After
the ballots were filled out, the same were submitted to the SecretaryGeneral.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General says there are 45 Commissioners in
the session hall.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, if the Secretary-General is looking for one
ballot, I have it here and my vote is no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: We request the Commissioner to submit his
ballot.
THE PRESIDENT: The results of the voting show 13 votes in favor and 31
against; the proposed Colayco amendment is lost.
MR. ROMULO: We have not voted nor have we had amendments to Section 3
(c) and (d). We have registered speakers here for amendments on (c) and
(d). However,
I recall that before we took up this section on labor, Commissioner Ople had
reserved his right to propose an amendment to Section 8. In view of the
hour,
I wonder if the Committee would allow that we take up that new section of
Commissioner Ople; then after lunch we go back to Section 3.
May we hear from the Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople?
MR. ROMULO: He is ready to present his amendment to Section 8.

MR. OPLE: Am I recognized, Madam President?
MR. OPLE: This is actually a proposed new statement which probably can be
another section immediately following Section 8. The proponents besides
myself
are: Commissioners Bennagen, de los Reyes, Romulo and Bengzon. It
probably can be called the industrialization statement under agrarian
reform and will
replace Section 9 which, by agreement, has just been transposed to the
Article on the National Economy and Patrimony. It reads as follows: THE
STATE SHALL
REDIRECT IDLE CAPITAL IN LAND UNLOCKED THROUGH AGRARIAN REFORM
TOWARDS ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
CREATION. BONDS OR OTHER FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ISSUED AS PAYMENT FOR LANDS UNDER SECTION 5 OF THIS
ARTICLE SHALL BE HONORED AS EQUITY IN GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS OF
THEIR CHOICE.
May I explain very briefly the principle behind this. Agrarian reform has a
tremendous synergy: (1) it can liberate the tiller from the bondage of the
soil; and (2) it can accelerate industrialization and employment expansion.
Accelerated industrialization is the other major goal of agrarian reform in
modern times. However, landowners whose lands are expropriated fund that
after
losing their lands, the bonds issued to them as payment by the government
are next to useless. This new section will ensure that these bonds are
actually
converted into dynamic new capital for industrial growth and expansion of
job opportunities.
And so, I ask that the Committee consider this proposal, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may we request that copies of that
proposal be distributed to the Members of the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Have copies been distributed?
MR. BENGZON: Copies have been distributed yesterday.
MR. SARMIENTO: We have no copies yet.
MR. OPLE: May I ask the Secretariat to reproduce the text of the
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we give the Committee time to deliberate on this
particular proposed amendment?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Committee would like to ask some
questions, in addition to the observations made.
MR. BENGZON: Is it also the intention to allow that these bonds, if bonds are
indeed paid, be used for payment of taxes or loans from government
corporations?
MR. OPLE: This is already an existing policy. However, I am sorry to report
that its implementation has been extremely erratic.
MR. BENGZON: So, that is the intention of the amendment, in addition to
what the Commissioner has already articulated.
MR. OPLE: Yes, that means that under this proposed section, bonds which
normally constitute 90 percent of the payment to a landowner covered by
land reform
(the remainder being cash) will be raised to a more serious level as a
negotiable instrument.
However, in the text of this proposed amendment what is given pride of
place is the role of this new capital that should be honored as equity or
shares of
stock in government investments of their own choice.
MR. JAMIR: May we request that we be furnished copies of the proposal
before any further interpellations, so we can follow intelligently?
THE PRESIDENT: We have already instructed the Secretariat to reproduce
copies.
MR. OPLE: If the Committee so desires, we can wait until the Secretariat
delivers copies of the text. May I point out that the Committee had been
furnished
copies of this proposed amendment ahead of time. I hope the Committee

confirms this.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, the Committee itself had been furnished copies of his
proposal, Madam President, but I doubt if the other Members had been
furnished.
MR. OPLE: May I know the pleasure of the Acting Floor Leader while waiting
for the copies of the pro posed amendment? Would he like to propose some
other
activity for the Commission?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I propose that we have lunch,
MR. OPLE: I support the proposal, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: In order to afford the Members an opportunity to go over the
draft, the Chair suspends the session for lunch. We will resume at 2:30 p.m.
It was 12:21 p.m.
May we ask the honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on
Social Justice to please occupy the front seats.
May we know from the Floor Leader if the Committee is now ready to react to
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople.
I think copies of this proposed amendment in its latest permutation have
already been circulated by the Secretariat.
May I identify the proponents of this amendment: Commissioners Rustico de
los Reyes, Ricardo Romulo, Jose Bengzon, Ponciano Bennagen, Adolfo
Azcuna,
Florenz Regalado, Christian Monsod and Regalado Maambong.
The amendment reads as follows: SECTION 9. THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE
INCENTIVES TO LANDOWNERS TO INVEST THE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRARIAN
REFORM PROGRAM SO AS TO
PROMOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION, EMPLOYMENT CREATION AND PRIVATIZATION
OF PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS USED AS
PAYMENT FOR LANDS SHALL BE
HONORED AS EQUITY IN SUCH ENTERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE.
This amendment may be denominated as the industrialization provision of
agrarian reform. I think it fills a need in the Article on Social Justice in the
sense that industrialization is really the other major goal of agrarian reform.
And earlier on we talked about the power of synergy inherent in agrarian
reform and, for that matter, social justice as a whole to liberate the tiller from
the bondage of the soil and also to release idle private capital now
locked in the antiquated land system, so that it becomes available for
industrialization and employment expansion. We all know, those who have
taken a
glance at the history of land reform in Japan, Taiwan and Korea, that the
economic miracles that have taken place in those countries and have
compelled the
admiration of the whole world, to a large extent, were rooted in the earlier
land reform program pursued by their governments.
And so that is the reason for this proposed new Section 9, Madam President. I
would like to seek the Committees approval of this amendment as now
reworded.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee may please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: The Committee accepts the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, just a question for clarification. What is
the meaning of PROCEEDS on line 3?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, PROCEEDS really refer to the proceeds that
the landowners will recover through a just compensation program.
BISHOP BACANI: This is, therefore, the payment of the land?

MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I would like to ask a few questions for
clarification in the record.
The Commissioner will remember that he invited me to coauthor this
proposal; and I said I like the objective of the proposal, but I was sorry I could
not
affix my signature because I wanted a clarification of the last sentence which
reads: FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ISSUED AS PAYMENT FOR LANDS SHALL BE
HONORED
AS EQUITY IN SUCH ENTERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE. When I read the
sentence, I immediately remembered the Land Bonds under the Marcos
regime. The
landowners, from whom the land was taken, were paid mostly in Land
Bonds, redeemable after 20 years. Does this last sentence mean that such
kind of bonds
come under the meaning of FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS issued as payment
for lands?
MR. RODRIGO: But we already burned our fingers with those Land Bonds
during the Marcos regime. Is there a difference between these financial
instruments
provided for in this proposed section and the Land Bonds issued during the
Marcos regime as payment for lands which were covered by land reform?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, financial instruments do refer to bonds as a
mode of payment for lands covered by land reform. May I explain briefly that
under
P.D. No. 27, which placed all corn and rice lands under land reform, the mode
of payment is 10 percent in cash and 90 percent in bonds. In Taiwan for rural
land reform only, it is 70 percent in bonds and 30 percent in shares of stock
in government corporations; and for urban land reform, there is a
stipulation, if I remember right, of a 60-percent cash recovery for the
landowner.
The last sentence in this proposed amendment will precisely correct the
situation earlier complained of by Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: Not only by me, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Yes, by many thousands of landowners who feel that they were
gypped by the government. After having surrendered their lands for cash
bonds, they
later found out that the cash bonds did not have the utility which they were
made to believe they had. For example, although I knew that there were
circulars sent to the government banks saying, Please honor Land Bank
bonds as collaterals for loans; or Please honor Land Bank bonds as offset
payments
for taxes or for arrears that have been incurred in previous loans, most of
the boards of directors of government financial institutions did not honor
those bonds, pleading as a reason their financial straits in which they found
themselves at the time.
So, the last sentence here supporting the principles of the linkage between
land reform and industrialization in the first part seeks to mandate the State
or Congress, if we like, in the future to make sure that landowners who will
lose their lands to the tillers under this land reform program will be given
financial instruments in payment for their lands, including bonds that will
have real utility. One way of giving more strategic development values to
such
bonds is to insure right here that these bonds will be honored as equity in
public enterprises chosen by the landowners themselves.
May I give an example. There are not too many government corporations
here making money now. In Taiwan, it is the opposite situation because
almost all the
government corporations are highly profitable. And so, it is also profitable for
landowners that have been divested of their landholdings to put their
bonds in these profitable corporations. But in our country there are not too
many of these. There are, however, some attractive vehicles for investments.
One example is the Land Bank of the Philippines which in 1985, when most
banks did not make money, made more than P400 million in net earnings.
That is the
right vehicle immediately available for a bondholder, like Commissioner Soc
Rodrigo, who lost some of his lands in Bulacan under P.D. No. 27.
MR. RODRIGO: All of my lands which were not too big.
MR. OPLE: So this is one way of redressing that admittedly deplorable and
cavalier treatment given to Land Bank bonds in the past.
MR. RODRIGO: Under this provision, is it possible for Congress or the
implementing agency to repeat what the Marcos regime did, to pay the
landowners from
whom lands were taken . . . 10 percent in cash and 90 percent in bonds?
MR. OPLE: There is no such specific mandate, Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO: But it would not be a violation of this section if the legislature
or the implementing agency so prescribes?
MR. OPLE: I think all the development planners know that given the
magnitude of the agrarian reform that now has to be financed through
Congress in the
coming years under the land reform provision of the Article on Social Justice,
the government cannot pay in cash except partially for lands that will be
acquired by it for distribution.
MR. RODRIGO: The question has not been answered categorically. My
question is: Would it be a violation of this provision in the proposed Section 9
if
Congress or the implementing agency again rules that lands taken from
landowners will be paid 10 percent in cash and 90 percent in bonds?
MR. OPLE: It would not.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may the Committee reply because we have
accepted the amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, please.
MR. MONSOD: If the payments or payment terms to the landowners are
similar to the previous program where the transfer value was 40-60 percent
of the face
value of the bonds, I think it has already been answered by this Committee,
Madam President, that that would not constitute just compensation if that
system were repeated by Congress. So it is the intent of the Commission to
give this interpretation to the meaning of just compensation. And the
problem
that arose, if we will recall, was the question of the farmers affordability and
the answer was that that is where the State should probably step in to
cover the difference between just compensation and what the farmers can
afford. So the answer to the Commissioners question is that the terms, as he
described, would not constitute just compensation.
This Article, if the Commissioner would notice, starts with the words SHALL
PROVIDE INCENTIVES. So there is a mandate to the Congress that the value
of
the payments and the terms of conversion should be such that there would
be an incentive for the landowners to invest in these enterprises, and a

conversion value of 50 percent of the face value would not be an incentive.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I am sorry but question has not been
answered yet categorically. So let me give a specific case. Let us say that the
land of
a certain landowner is taken under land reform. The government determines
its value and arrives at the conclusion that the just compensation is
P100,000.
Would it be a violation of this proposed section if the implementing agency
tells the owner: All right, I will pay you only P10,000 in cash and P90,000 in
bonds
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, it would not be just compensation if the
terms of the bonds are such that the present value would not be equal to
P100,000. If
the interest, for example, on the bonds is way below the market rate of
interest so that the present value of the stream of payments under the bond
issue
would be much lower than the balance of P90,000, it would not constitute
just compensation.
MR. RODRIGO: But it is possible to pay only 10 percent in cash and 90
percent in bonds regardless of the interest on the bonds.
MR. MONSOD: That would be possible here because I think when you pay full
value, it can be in many forms and combinations. It can be all in cash, it can
be
payment terms over a period, but it must approximate the present value that
is given to the market price of the land.
MR. RODRIGO: The sentence further reads: SHALL BE HONORED AS EQUITY
IN SUCH ENTERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE. Does the word ENTERPRISES
mean public
enterprises, or does it include private enterprises?
MR. MONSOD: I think this would have to be read in connection with the first
sentence where the phrase PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR
ENTERPRISES appears
because that is within the power of the government to accept any exchange
of the financial instruments for equity shares of these corporations.
MR. RODRIGO: Public corporation.
MR. MONSOD: PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES. In the case of private sector
enterprises, I do not think that the government has the power to direct or
command
private sector enterprises to accept the bonds as exchanged. However, if the
value of the bonds is such that the present value reflects the real values,
then it is possible because then there would be no loss for private
enterprises to accept it in order to accelerate the broad participation of coownership
of their companies.
MR. RODRIGO: In short, if the bonds are invested in government
corporations, it can be compulsory for a government corporation to accept
these bonds if
that corporation is the choice of the landowner. Is that right? If it is a public
corporation?
MR. MONSOD: That is right.
MR. RODRIGO: But, if it is a private corporation?
MR. MONSOD: It cannot be compulsory. In that case, market forces will have
to operate and that is where the value of the bonds will be a consideration.
MR. RODRIGO: But, if the private enterprise opts to accept, can it accept?
MR. MONSOD: That would be the operation of the market.
MR. RODRIGO: In short, as regards to public corporation it is compulsory to
accept the bonds as equity; but in regard to private corporation, it is
optional. Is that correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: But the problem is that I do not know of any public or
government corporation in the Philippines which is making money, except
perhaps the
Land Bank. But can the Land Bank accommodate all the land bonds that will
be issued for land reform?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, it is not exactly correct to say that there are
no public sector enterprises other than the Land Bank. By the way, there are
six banks and the other five, if I recall it correctly, are all making money.
ComBank is making money; Union Bank is making money; then, of course,
National Steel Corporation is making money it is going to make, I think,
over P500 million this year. There are several companies that are profitable,
although we read only about the unprofitable ones.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I am not an economist but I read about the billions upon
billions of indebtedness of the PNB and the DBP.
MR. BENGZON: The Committee reiterates its acceptance.
MR. RAMA: The issue has been amply debated, but Commissioners Colayco
and Davide have some questions before we take a vote.
My question is addressed either to Commissioner Ople or to the Committee.
The proposal says, THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES. Will the
payment be
mainly in the form of financial instruments?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. COLAYCO: Can the Committee spell out its idea of what these incentives
are going to be for the guidance of Congress?
MR. MONSOD: Let me just give one example but which is not exhaustive. This
would be in the pricing of the shares of the public sector enterprises, in the
terms of payment of the shares of these private firms.
MR. COLAYCO: I want figures. The bad experience of Commissioner Rodrigo
and others has shown that the 10-percent cash payment was just a drop in
the bucket
of the price paid. Does the Committee intend to follow the same percentage
of cash payment?
MR. MONSOD: When we answered Commissioner Rodrigo, we said that it is
not really a question of whether it is paid in cash or not. Even if it is paid only
10 percent in cash, the problem in the previous system was that the balance
of 90 percent was payable over a long period of time at a very low interest
rate, so that the present value of that bond was way below the real value of
the property. Now, even if we have long-term payment and its balance is in
bonds, if the interest rate on the bonds is such that the present market value
of the bonds equals the price of the land, it is possible to exchange that
in the free market, even in the private sector, because then there will be a
market-for such bonds. When the government unloads these public sector
enterprises, then it is possible, in addition to giving them the real value in
terms of bonds, that the pricing of the shares is such that it gives an
incentive for them to buy those shares.
MR. COLAYCO: Does the Gentleman think that his ideas will sufficiently guide
the legislature to avoid past mistakes?
MR. MONSOD: There are, I think, enough records of this Commission which
define just compensation.
MR. REGALADO: I had previously discussed this matter with Commissioner
Monsod, and I just want it to be on the record. With respect to the incentives
that
will be given to holders of these land bonds, among other things, will these
land bonds be acceptable for the payment of taxes of the landowner
concerned,
and for the payment, let us say, of loans from government banks?
MR. BENGZON: This was already articulated in the affirmative by
Commissioner Ople this morning, and we reiterate that it is the intention of
the Committee
to be such.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, whenever it is an obligation in favor of the
government or of any of its owned or controlled corporations or banks, as the
case may be, this will be among the incentives for the acceptance of these
land bonds.
MR. BENGZON: It is not only among the incentives but it is the intent of the
Committee in proposing this section here, that that be one of the
consequences.

I seek enlightenment on some of the ramifications of this proposed section.
Would we now allow the landowner to negotiate the financial instruments,
and
for the person to whom it is negotiated to avail of the rights provided for
under Section 9, or shall it be a personal right?
MR. MONSOD: It is our understanding that bond or financial instruments
representing proceeds under the agrarian reform program would be
negotiable
instruments.
MR. DAVIDE: And would the transferee or indorsee of that financial
instrument be allowed to exercise the right under Section 9?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, precisely because if we can create a market for those
bonds and financial instruments, it would give incentives for more
investments.
MR. DAVIDE: The second question is on public sector enterprises: Will the
reference of this be only government-owned and controlled corporations or
their
subsidiaries?
MR. MONSOD: Yes. That is the meaning in this sentence, because the
government would not have the power to oblige private sector enterprises to
accept these
bonds.
MR. DAVIDE: Even corporations exercising quasi-public functions, like public
utilities?
MR. MONSOD: That would then be a matter o public policy on which
enterprises would be privatized
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, Section 9 will be interpreted to mean that
Congress will have the freedom or the liberty to include quasi-public utilities
or
corporations as one of the entities in which the landowner may use as equity
the financial instruments issued to them in payment for the land.
MR. MONSOD: If that is within the context of the privatization program of
government, they would be included.
MR. DAVIDE: With this particular section, we not only institutionalize the
bonds which were used in payment under the agrarian reform program, but
also
enshrine the right of Congress to require payments for lands taken under the
agrarian reform program by way of bonds. Could it exclusively be bonds?
MR. MONSOD: No. I think the reason why we used the word financial
instruments is that we did not want to preempt the possible range of
financial
instruments that could be issued under the agrarian reform program.
MR. DAVIDE: So, financial instruments may include any negotiable
instrument for that matter certificate of indebtedness, promissory notes,
and other
instruments.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Rosario Braid seeks to be
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Just a clarificatory question. Would ENTERPRISES OF
THEIR CHOICE mean that we give the landowners the freedom to choose
from all
available enterprises or does the State suggest vital enterprises?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, what we mean is within the number or the
range of enterprises which the government has decided would be privatized.
Then the
landowners or the holders of these instruments make a choice from among
those enterprises. It is not the landowners who direct which public sector
enterprises will be privatized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Since industrialization is the goal, should we not qualify
it by saying a VITAL enterprise so that we could not just allow everyone to
make free choices?
MR. MONSOD: That might be an unnecessary adjective there because there
are other sections in the Constitution that define more clearly and in more
detail
the areas or the manner by which the government can get involved in
industrialization. This would not be the article for that definition.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Lastly, in the spirit of brevity, could this not be
shortened to mean the same thing? This appears to be a long provision. I
think by
capturing the concept of cooperation with private enterprise and the goal, as
well as the purpose for the investment, could we rephrase it in some other
way?
MR. MONSOD: Does the Commissioner have any suggestions?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I do not know if this amendment captures the meaning
I wish to convey: THE STATE IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR
SHALL PROMOTE
INDUSTRIALIZATION BY EMPLOYMENT CREATION AND PRIVATIZATION OF
PUBLIC ENTERPRISES. TOWARDS THIS END, IT SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES
TO LANDOWNERS WHO INVEST
PROCEEDS FROM AGRARIAN REFORM BOND ON VITAL ENTERPRISES.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the second sentence would convey the
ideas we have here but the first sentence sounds like a general statement
that might
belong in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or in the Article on
the National Economy and Patrimony. If we count the words, there are about
the same as in the original.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I withdraw the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: I would like to ask a question of my fellow member of our
Committee.
This is meant to be an incentive. Now I would like to ask a similar question to
the one that I asked yesterday regarding land reform. Supposing a landowner
does not want to take advantage of this incentive and then he says, I will
not sell my land until you give me cash and that is the only one that I will
accept. Will the landowners prevail or can they be forced to accept these
financial instruments other than cash?
MR. MONSOD: During yesterdays discussions, we defined the agrarian
reform program in terms of the exercise of police, power, because in this
case there is
a higher level of objective and value than the landowners option to hold on
to the private property. In that case, to refuse to participate or to allow
the land to be part of the agrarian reform program merely on the basis of the
fact that he wants all payments in cash probably would not be allowed.
However, the owner is entitled to ask that the just compensation be really
that.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Lerum seeks to be recognized.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I just want to ask a few questions.
I agree with the purpose to the effect that it will liberate the tiller from the
bondage of the soil. That is the first purpose. The second purpose is to
release idle capital locked up in the antiquated land system and therefore
accelerate industrialization and employment expansion. I am just curious
what
is this capital that is locked up in this system? Will the sponsor kindly explain
this?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, there is a lot of potential capital locked up in a
land system which does not encourage productivity. For example, just to cull
from some of the most recent examples under P.D. No. 27, there are many
landed estates in rice and corn that were broken up, and so I am speaking of
absentee landowners. By the coverage of the land reform program, this
largely idle capital of the absentee landowner which relies on the tenants
efforts
to generate production, is released in terms of the compensation given him.
So that this gives him the opportunity to transform his role from an absentee
landowner not really connected with the productive process, a virtual
parasite of society, into an entrepreneur or perhaps even just as an investor.
In the
case of Taiwan, within five years from the inauguration of its land reform
program, NT$2 billion was released to industry as a result of the agrarian
reform program which otherwise would have been capital lying dormant in
the land.
MR. LERUM: The Gentleman is referring to Taiwan, but we are talking about
the Philippines. Does this locked-up capital refer to the payment that should
have been received by the landowner?
MR. OPLE: Yes, the proceeds of agrarian reform.
MR. LERUM: But according to the statement of the Gentleman, the 90

percent which should have been paid to the owner in bonds is almost
worthless, so where
is this locked-up capital that we are talking about?
MR. OPLE: In the first place, Commissioner Lerum would like to outlaw any
reference to the experience of a foreign country and I think that is less than
courteous, especially when one sits in a committee. I deplore that.
MR. LERUM: I am sorry if that is the impression of the Gentleman. but I have
to ask the question because in the proponents own explanatory statement,
the
90 percent that was paid in bonds is worthless. So, I want to find out where
this locked-up capital is.
MR. MONSOD: May the Committee answer, Madam President?
MR. MONSOD: There are many ways to look at this but assets can either be
in the form of land, bonds or cash. Cash is the easiest to use in terms of
investments When the agrarian reform program is implemented and the
landowner exchanges bonds for his land, the bond is closer to liquidity than
land. As
we have stated before, if it is in the form of bonds and it really constitutes
just compensation so that it bears the market rate of interest, that becomes
a highly liquid asset that can be negotiated and, therefore, may be used as
payment for equity, thereby increasing investment in the country in new or
ongoing enterprises. I think that is the sense in which locked-up capital is
referred to. It is really locked-up if it is not available for investments.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there has been sufficient debate and discussion
on the matter.
MR. LERUM: May I be allowed to reply?
MR. RAMA: May I ask that we take a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Floor Leader, may we give a chance to Mr. Lerum to
reply if he is satisfied with the response of Commissioner Monsod? Is
Commissioner
Lerum satisfied with the explanation?
MR. LERUM: No; I have to make a reply, Madam President.
Ordinarily that is so. But in the case of the bonds paid by the government to
the landowner, these are not new capital but indebtedness to the landowner,
so we did not create any capital. My contention is that there is no such
locked-up capital because the bond represents indebtedness of the
government to
the owners of the land which was given to the tillers of the soil. That is my
point.
MR. MONSOD: I am sorry, but I do not agree with the Gentleman.
MR. LERUM: I am through, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: When we talk about capital, we have to distinguish between
different types of assets. And usually in economics when we talk about
investment,
it is the creation of new productive enterprises or new productive assets.
What we are saying here is, that is possible because then there would now
be
money available to finance new productive assets.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Maambong have anything to say?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. In fact, I am one of the proponents
of Section 9, but I would like to present to the Committee a perfecting
amendment
to delete the words SO AS after the word PROGRAM in the third line so
that it will read: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LANDOWNERS
TO INVEST
THE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE
INDUSTRIALIZATION.
Would that be acceptable?
MR. MONSOD: We accept, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may we now take a vote on Section 9?
THE PRESIDENT: Does everybody have a copy of this proposed amendment
of Commissioner Ople and several others?
MR. BENGZON: Everybody has a copy, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those who are in favor of the proposed Section 9 of the
Article on Social Justice, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their
hand.)
Those who are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
MR. RODRIGO: Please register my abstention.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 30 votes in favor, none against, and 1
abstention; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Section 3 of this Article has not yet been fully
amended. May I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized.
My proposed amendment will be on Section 3, paragraphs (c) and (d). With
respect to paragraph (c), it is more of a perfecting amendment on the last
clause
which says: and enforce mutual compliance thereof 1; propose to
change thereof to THEREWITH, because one complies with something and
not of
something.
THE PRESIDENT: May I have that again, Commissioner Regalado? What line
please?
MR. REGALADO: The fourth line of Section 3, paragraph (c), page 2, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner proposes to change the word thereof to
THEREWITH.
MR. BENGZON: It is a matter of style, Madam President; we accept.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote on the amendment first. Is there any objection
to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Regalado to change the word
thereof
to THEREWITH. (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. MONSOD: May we make a request from the Floor Leader?
The principal author of this section, Commissioner Aquino, had to be called
outside on a long distance call and we would like to wait for her. Can we
defer
on the others and just proceed with Urban Land Reform and Housing?
MR. REGALADO: This is Section 11?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: So, I will just defer my proposed amendment to paragraph
(d) of Section 3.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized to
amend Section 11.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, before we go to the amendments from the
others, I would like to explain some minor changes that we would like to
propose on
Section 11.
This is on the line that says: a continuing urban land USE and Housing
program. First of all, Housing should be with a small h. And we would like
to
add the phrase IN COORDINATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR, and then,
will MAKE decent housing.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, our amendment will also affect the same line.
MS. NIEVA: As Chairperson of the Committee, may I be allowed to continue?
MS. NIEVA: The rest of the sentence shall read: continuing urban land USE
and housing program that IN COORDINATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR will
MAKE
decent housing; and then here we add: AND SERVICES AVAILABLE at
affordable cost to deserving low-income citizens in urban centers and
resettlement
areas.
The reason for this is that we realize the magnitude of the housing problem
in the country. We know that at this stage, there is a nationwide backlog
representing just the households in slums and blighted areas estimated at
992,000 households and these blighted areas are 80 percent privately
owned. Of
these 992,000 squatter households, some 282,000 are in Metro Manila. The
studies have shown that these sites, in order to be upgraded, will cost
approximately P543 billion, while the balance of the households will have to
be resettled in various government resettlement sites and this again will cost
P828 million. It is also estimated that every year, 20,000 home lots have to
be developed over the next 10 years, and this again cost approximately P460
million. This is just for Metro Manila where one-third of the urban poor
dwellers are located.
A similar situation is evident in the 19 major regional urban centers outside
Metro Manila for some 213,000 squatter households living in slum areas. An
estimate showed that more than P3 billion will be needed to upgrade these
areas in the provinces. So, in view of this, and we have supporting statistics
here, we realize that the problem of making decent housing and services
available cannot be done by government solely. In fact, we feel that the
governments main job is to make the opportunities present and provide
what they call new approaches of sites and services and development of
improved
infrastructure, leaving the matter of direct housing opportunities to the
private sector, which includes the people themselves, the different
landowners,
land developers, financing institutions, and for them to cooperate and work
together to solve this problem that is not only a Philippine problem, but is
the problem of all urban centers throughout the world.
Therefore, we would like to put the phrase IN COORDINATION WITH THE
PRIVATE SECTOR so as to make it clear that our intention here is not for the
government
alone to be responsible for answering and addressing this very serious
problem of our urban poor dwellers in the country.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Floor Leader, who is the first in the list?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Foz has the floor.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized
MR. FOZ: We would like to propose an amendment for the entire Section 11
in the form of an amendment by substitution. Let me read the proposed
amendment,
Madam President. It says: The State shall ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT AN
URBAN LAND REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE THE RENEWAL,
DEVELOPMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF
HUMAN COMMUNITIES FOR THE COMMON GOOD. IT SHALL PURSUE A SOCIAL
HOUSING PROGRAM TO MAKE decent housing AND OTHER COMMUNITY
SERVICES AVAILABLE TO deserving
low-income citizens.
First of all, the amendment seeks to reinstate the word REFORM as part of
the term urban land REFORM program. The term urban land use, Madam
President, has a limited implication. Basically, it has to do only with zoning
function, and does not cover the other components of an urban land reform
program The usual components of an urban land reform program are the
following: First, to liberate human communities from blight, congestions and
hazards
and to promote their development and modernization; second, to bring
about the optimum use of land as a national resource for public welfare
rather than as
a community of trade subject to price speculation and indiscriminate use
third, to provide equitable access to and opportunity for the use and
enjoyment of
the fruits of the land fourth, to acquire such lands as are necessary to
prevent speculative buying of land for public welfare; and finally, to maintain
and support a vigorous private enterprise system responsive to community
requirements in the use and development of urban lands. These are the
reasons why
we propose the reinstatement of the word REFORM to constitute urban
land reform and not only use.
This amendment is being submitted not only to yours truly but also in
collaboration with Commissioners Sarmiento, Treas, Tan and Villegas.
As to the statement of Commissioner Nieva that the provision of housing to
low-income citizens should be, collaboration with the private sectors, there is
actually no controversy about that. That is all very well understood in this
provision, Madam President. We would like to hear the response of the
Committee to the proposed amendment.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, there is some discussion here and a

recommendation that we first take the first proposal, the first amendment,
changing the
term urban land USE to urban land REFORM. We would like to throw this
to the body because even the Committee is divided on the choice of words.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I would like to make clear that urban land USE
is a very limited concept.
It consists mainly of zoning. It does not involve provision for housing and
acquisition of land which may be necessary for the government to implement
its
housing program for the low-salaried citizens.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just have a short reply?
If we look at the wording of the Committee, it is urban land USE and housing
program. Nonetheless, we would like to ask the judgment of the body on
whether we should use the word USE or REFORM.
MR. FOZ: May we add the information that the present Constitution already
provides for an urban land reform program. So, if we use the word USE, we
are
now backtracking. This is withdrawing from the original concept now
institutionalized in the present Constitution.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may we hear from Commissioner Tan who
is a member of the Committee and who proposed this particular section.
SR TAN. : I really did not propose this particular section. I was just in
agreement with certain parts but I welcome this section. The first part is the
change of the word REFORM from USE because land use could be applied
to anybody. While if we say REFORM, it means to say that land has been
used
unjustly, so, we are trying to reform. So, I welcome reform. But as to the
other two, I would suggest that instead of simply saying TO MAKE decent
housing and other community facilities available, we say TO make decent
housing AND BASIC COMMUNITY FACILITIES OR SERVICES AVAILABLE. One
could have a
swimming pool, like what is in the BLISS projects, but would not have the
basic running water in the washroom. I consider the use of the term low
income not good, because low income is relative. An army soldier could
be in the low-income group as a squatter could also be in that group. Perhaps
a
better word would be UNDERPRIVILEGED; but I welcome the way this has
been revised.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Villegas would like to comment
on the same amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS: Could I just supplement the reason why I think the word
REFORM in urban land REFORM should stay? I think it has to be clear that
we are
giving the State the authority to expropriate large urban tracts of land for
redistribution to deserving citizens in the spirit of agrarian reform. So, I
think the State cannot only expropriate large agricultural lands; it can also
expropriate large urban lands for the common good.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
It was 3:41 p.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the proponents have reached a meeting of the
minds. I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, after consultation with the Committee, as well as
with other Commissioners, including Commissioners Treas, Sarmiento, Tan,
Rama,
Villegas and de los Reyes, we have come up with a common formulation on
Section 11, and which the Committee is accepting.
So, I would like to read for the benefit of the Committee the entire provision,
as reworded or reformulated.

MR. FOZ: The State shall BY LAW and for the common good undertake a
continuing program OF urban land REFORM and housing IN COORDINATION
WITH THE PRIVATE
SECTOR that will MAKE decent housing AND BASIC SERVICES AVAILABLE at
affordable cost to UNDERPRIVILEGED AND HOMELESS CITIZENS in urban
centers and
resettlement areas.
That is the amendment to Section 11, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we are accepting the suggestion of
Commissioner Nolledo that instead of COORDINATION we use the word
COOPERATION which
better reflects the idea of the Committee IN COOPERATION WITH THE
PRIVATE SECTOR.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I will explain.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to be recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to explain why I suggested the word
COOPERATION instead of COORDINATION. When we coordinate, we talk
only of efforts. The
word COORDINATION may preclude investments. So, I recommended to the
Committee that instead of COORDINATION we should use the word
COOPERATION. I
think Commissioner Foz will understand.
MR. FOZ: So, the Gentleman would exchange COORDINATION for
COOPERATION?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, because I feel that COOPERATION is a stronger term
than COORDINATION.
MR. FOZ: But is it not the other way around?
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so.
MR. FOZ: Coordination is a stronger term than cooperation, because with
coordination there is involvement of efforts and also money funds, while
with
cooperation, the private sector will just say, we agree, but there is no
involvement, no commitment.
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so, because when we coordinate, we coordinate
only efforts on the part of either side. But when we use COOPERATION,
then
cooperation may include investments, efforts and other factors. I would even
recommend COLLABORATION the original word that the Gentleman used.
MR. FOZ: Actually, the word COORDINATION was suggested by the
Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is why I explained to the Committee and the Committee
accepted my suggestion.
MR. FOZ: In that case, we also accept, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I really feel I have to react to this watering
down of this particular provision, when the original that the Committee
presented was SHALL REGULATE. But when we say, BY LAW, that
subjects it to legislation which removes the mandate that all along we have
wanted the
urban poor to enjoy as a form of social justice.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just answer our colleague because
the reason we agreed to the removal of the words regulate the ownership
is that the
general rule on regulation, acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of
property and its increment is already stated in Section 1. Therefore, the
general rule affects all the sections on Social Justice. So it do not dilute or
diminish because the general rule is very strong and is in the first
section.
MR. FOZ: And in addition, the term urban REFORM involves the idea of
regulation.
THE PRESIDENT: How does the section read now?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner will read the complete text.
MR. FOZ: The provision reads as follows: The State shall BY LAW and for the
common good undertake a continuing program of urban land REFORM and
housing IN
COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR that will MAKE decent housing
AND BASIC SERVICES AVAILABLE at affordable cost to UNDERPRIVILEGED
AND HOMELESS citizens
in urban centers and resettlement areas.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, before we vote would like to explain briefly why
I asked that the word deserving be deleted and that instead we add the
words
HOMELESS citizens after UNDERPRIVILEGED AND, the reason being that
there are underprivileged citizens that have homes by inheritance Our main
concern
here are the homeless citizens who live on the sidewalks, on top of garbage
dumps and shacks. So, that is the explanation why I inserted the words AND
HOMELESS citizens. May I ask that we now take a vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify: we also have the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Treas.
MR. TREAS: Madam President, we have incorporated all our ideas.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of this particular amendment on Section 11,
The results show 35 votes in favor and 2 against, amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized to amend
Section 12.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, my amendment is an amendment by
deletion. May I propose that we delete the words with valid claims after
dwellers?
MS. NIEVA: We have taken that out.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that has been taken out.
MR. BENGZON: We have taken that out.

MS. NIEVA: We also deleted the words due process, and instead we use IN
ACCORDANCE WITH law.
MR. SARMIENTO: Will Commissioner Nieva kindly repeat that.
MS. NIEVA: Line 3 reads as follows: Urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted
nor their dwellings demolished EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH law AND
ALWAYS IN A
JUST AND HUMANE MANNER. But I think we have not yet finished it.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I be clarified on why we removed the words due
process and replaced these with the word LAW instead?
MR. BENGZON: It is a redundancy. If it is in accordance with law, it means to
say it is with due process.
My other amendment on Section 12 is for the retention of the lines originally
deleted by the Committee, and these are the words and their involvement
in
its planning and implementation.
Madam President, I conferred with a group of urban poor and they asked that
these lines be retained because they wanted to participate not only in the
planning but also in the implementation. These two lines, they said, are
crucial lines which ought to be retained.
MR. BENGZON: Will the Commissioner kindly repeat that?
MR. SARMIENTO: My suggestion, Madam President, is for the retention of the
lines and their involvement its planning and implementation because this
settlement will definitely affect the urban poor numbering more than one
million in Metro Manila. So they are suggesting and I hope the Committee
will
accept this proposal that we retain the words, and their involvement in its
planning and implementation.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the reason that was deleted is that there is
already that understanding when we inserted the word consultation.
MR. SARMIENTO: But for clarity and what are two lines among friends I
propose that we retain these. After all, this was the original proposal of the
Committee for the inclusion of these two lines. May I suggest, therefore, that
we retain the same.
MR. BENGZON: The situation we are really trying to avoid is that, if after all
the planning which is done by the government in consultation with these
people, they ultimately refuse to be resettled, then everything will have gone
to waste. After all, this phrase is already covered in the word
consultation.
MR. SARMIENTO: Anyway, if the real intent of the Committee is for that
consultation to cover their involvement in planning and implementation, then
I
May I inquire from the Committee whether the words here, urban poor
dwellers shall not be evicted, refer to the squatters?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Under existing law, squatters are per se illegally occupying
the land.
MR. BENGZON: That is why we say, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, because if
he is a squatter, under the law, he is a nuisance per se.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: He can be evicted because of the very fact that he is a
nuisance per se, which is in accordance with law. However, the eviction will
have to
be in a just and humane manner, not in the manner by which, for example,
the squatters in the Tatalon Estate were evicted or were attempted to be
evicted.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will agree on the use of JUST AND HUMANE MANNER. But
when we say that they cannot be evicted nor their dwellings demolished
except in
accordance with law would that force the poor owner of the land being
squatted on to go to court to evict them?
MR. BENGZON: That is why I say that if the illegal squatters are a nuisance
per se, an eviction, without going to court, would be in accordance with law.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes. So, the owner of the land on which they are squatting
will have to go to court to evict them. Is that right under this provision?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Suppose the poor owner does not have the means to go to
court because litigation is costly, will he then have to live with the situation
that what he owns he does not have? With the statement urban poor
dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished EXCEPT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANNER, we are forcing the
owner of the land to go to court, in accordance with law for the eviction. If
the owner has
no money because court litigation is quite expensive, then we are liable to
have a small landowner ending up without any land at all.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may we request Commissioner Regalado to
explain this.
MR. REGALADO: As we were saying, a professional squatter with no valid
claim whatsoever can be considered a nuisance per se. And in the
abatement of a
nuisance per se as distinguished from a nuisance per accidens, the owner
does not have to go to court. He can report to the municipal authorities or to
the
health authorities or he can seek the aid of the police authorities. If, on the
other hand, it is a nuisance per accidens which requires a determination of
facts, then that will be the time when judicial recourse will be necessary.
Also, the owner himself, under the law on property, is entitled to use a
reasonable cost in defense of his property, whenever there is a clear, patent
infringement upon his property rights. Now, this does not compel the owner
to
go to court. If it is a nuisance per se, all he has to do is to seek the help of
the local authorities.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, may I make some remarks on

Commissioner Regalados remarks.
Commissioner Regalado speaks of professional squatters, who are to him a
nuisance per se. When he finds a squatter, that is a nuisance per accidens to
him.
Now, how can we determine whether or not he is a professional squatter? In
the first place, when we see a man squatting on our property, it is illegal per
se from the very beginning. What about in the city where somebody occupies
your land which measures up to 250, 300 or 350 square meters? How can
the owner
determine whether he is a professional squatter or just a mere squatter? We
are constitutionalizing squatting. I will really agree on a humane and just
manner of evicting them, but to require the owner of that land to go to court
so that he can comply in accordance with law, will be too much punishment
for
the poor owner who is perhaps as poor as the squatter himself.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, to begin with, even at this moment or even
without this particular paragraph, one cannot get a squatter out unless one
sues
him in court, unless, as we said, the squatter is a nuisance per se. And if he
is a nuisance per se or a professional squatter, the landowner does not have
to go to court, as explained by Commissioner Regalado.
MR. DE CASTRO: That is my main difficulty.
MR. BENGZON: That depends already upon the facts of the case. We cannot
put all of those exceptions and explanations in here, except the ones that are
in
the Journal.
MR. DE CASTRO: I would then make an amendment by deleting the first
sentence of Section 12 because we are constitutionalizing squatting in this
Constitution.
MR. BENGZON: Would the Gentleman propose his amendment then so that
we can act on it?
MR. DE CASTRO: I suggest that the following first sentence of Section 12 be
deleted: Urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings
demolished EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND
HUMANE MANNER, the reason being that we are constitutionalizing here
squatting whether
it is professional squatters or just mere squatters. We have no reason to
constitutionalize what is nuisance per se or what is nuisance per accidens.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, may I be recognized?

MR. BROCKA: I would like to make a comment on Commissioner de Castros
comments on this. We are not out to find out, I think, in this particular
section
whether or not they are illegal or professional squatters. This particular
section is premised on the fact that they are human beings and should be
protected by law. They should not be driven away like animals, in the way
the demolition of shanties was done in the past wherein a group of army or
military or security guards would just come, without due process of law. In
certain cases, some people have been killed . An example has already been
cited
in the case of the Tatalon Estate.
The particular section is premised on the fact that squatters, whether they
are there illegally or not, whether they are professionals or not, are human
beings. It is not their fault that they are poor. Under the law, they should be
protected. That particular protection is what we are asking under this
section on social justice.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, it has been accepted by the Committee
that when we talk of urban poor dwellers, we refer to squatters. I do not say
that
they are animals; neither do I say that they should be driven like such. But
what I am questioning, Madam President, is why we are constitutionalizing
squatting. So, I do recommend that the first sentence in Section 12 be
deleted.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment by deletion?
MS. NIEVA: No, the Committee does not accept, Madam President.
VOTING
MR. RAMA: May we take a vote on this?
de Castro to delete the first sentence of Section 12, please raise their hand.
(One
Member raised his hand.)
The results show 1 vote in favor and 30 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, before going to Section 11 or 12 in the draft,
may I be allowed to go back to Section 11 after the Foz amendment. With the
permission of the Commission, we failed to answer a basic demand and a
basic right for the urban poor a dwellers and resettlement dwellers.
I seek to add, after the Foz amendment, the following sentence with the
permission of the Commission: IT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES TO SUCH CITIZENS. This is an amendment jointly proposed
by Commissioners Nolledo, Sarmiento, Foz, Bennagen and Tan. Perhaps, in
the euphoria
of our desire to answer the needs of the urban poor dwellers, we forgot one
very important and significant assistance which we should give to them.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, the original committee report carried the
phrase employment-generating economic activity. Yes, that is very
important.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the Committee willingly accept this amendment?
MS. NIEVA: We are accepting that amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please repeat the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: It is to place a new sentence after the Foz amendment: IT
SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO SUCH
CITIZENS. Commissioners
Foz, Sarmiento, Nolledo, Tan and Bennagen are coauthors.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment which
has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On Section 12 of the proposed draft, I am constrained to
present this amendment because my past is haunting me. I come from a
very poor rural
community. But at the start of Section 12, we only speak of the urban poor
dwellers. So, I seek to insert between urban and poor the words AND
RURAL.
MR. BENNAGEN: May we ask the proponent what to include under the
category of rural poor?
MR. DAVIDE: The same as the rural poor referred to in the phrase No
resettlement of URBAN OR RURAL DWELLERS appearing in the second
sentence. These are
the rural poor.
MR. BENNAGEN: Would these include also rural communities that are
threatened by huge infrastructure projects?
MR. DAVIDE: Certainly.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee gladly accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment which
amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Regalado be
recognized.
Still on Section 12 of the draft proposal: we have a little difficulty in the
conception of urban poor dwellers. I, therefore, propose an amendment to
read
UNDERPRIVILEGED URBAN DWELLERS because when we speak of poor or
poverty, it is generally conceived in terms of their financial capacity. But
financial
capacity alone is not the only consideration. There may be other factors to
consider in classifying an underprivileged urban dweller. So, in lieu of urban
poor dwellers and to have a broader scope which will include the poor, I
propose that we use the phrase UNDERPRIVILEGED URBAN DWELLERS to
make it a little
more encompassing.

MR. DAVIDE: The Honorable Regalado did not read the recently accepted
amendment. It should read: URBAN AND RURAL POOR DWELLERS.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, but I am after the change of the word from poor to
UNDERPRIVILEGED for the reasons I have given, and the word is more
encompassing.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I just be allowed to make a comment on the proposed
amendment? When we speak of urban poor dwellers, we speak of those who
are
financially poor and deprived of basic necessities. So, I think urban poor
would cover the word UNDERPRIVILEGED, since urban poor has achieved
a
meaning. It has been used for years, for decades. So, if the proponent uses
UNDERPRIVILEGED URBAN DWELLERS, then that would be creating
confusion. Even
the present Constitution speaks of urban poor.
MR. REGALADO: My view of it is that when we speak of underprivileged
urban dwellers, that necessarily includes the poor. Now, the mere fact that
urban
poor is used in the 1973 Constitution does not mean to say that it has had
an inflexible and rigid jurisprudential meaning. I want it expanded to more
than just the financial capacity of a person.
MR. FOZ: The term urban poor is mentioned not only in the 1973
Constitution but in volumes and volumes of books on real estate
development. It is
accepted term even among developers all over the world. So, I think we
should stick to the term urban poor.
MR. REGALADO: Provided, however, that it me not only the financial but also
other aspects of where they are underprivileged or at a disadvantage and
provided that the Committee will accept it.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: I will yield to the use of the word urban poor.
MR. BENGZON: With that understanding, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: With regard to the third line which says, EXCEPT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALWAYS, I propose the deletion of the word
ALWAYS because it
is redundant. The third line already says EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANNER.
MS. NIEVA: We accept, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: We accept.
MR. REGALADO: On the fifth line, I propose insert THEM AND between the
words with and the and after communities, add WHERE THEY ARE that
the amended
portion will now read: or rural dwellers shall take place without consultation
with THEM AND the communities WHERE THEY ARE to be relocated. We will
give
the communities where they are going to be transferred a say on whether or
not they should be placed in that particular community. In other words, we
provide a dual consultation with community and with the urban poor in their
own community. Also, this will provide a chance for the other community to
which they are going to be relocated to explain whether their resources or
their situation would accommodate so many in the resettlement areas.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, does THEM to entire communities, because
here we have in mind entire communities that have to be relocated and
resettled
because of infrastructure projects like dams?
MR. REGALADO: No. The use of the pronoun them has for its antecedent
the urban or dwellers. There must be prior consultation, of course, with the
urban
and rural dwellers. So the word them has reference to the urban or rural
dwellers who are going to be relocated. The second addition is also a
consultation with the community to which the going to be relocated. So, it is
not just the government saying, We will transfer you here, without giving
that other community where they are intended to be relocated the
opportunity also to say, Well, this is our present situation. We have these
problems
ourselves.
They may not have enough arrangements for giving employment as has
already been adopted in the amendment of Commissioner Davide. So, at
least there should

be a consultation with the community where the settlers are going to be
relocated, aside from the consultation with those who are going to be
relocated.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponent yield to one question?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, gladly.
MR. DAVIDE: What if the community to which they will be relocated rejects?
Would it mean the failure of the resettlement plan or program?
MR. REGALADO: No. The word we used here is only consultation. They
cannot reject or override a governmental policy, but at least that community
can
prepare to accept these people or to ventilate also the possible problems,
because being members and residents of that community, they are also in a
position to inform the authorities why it would not be advisable. If, however,
the authorities insist, then it is only a question of consultation.
MR. DAVIDE: So just for the record, it is not really a right granted to the
communities to where they will be relocated.
MR. REGALADO: No.
MR. DAVIDE: If the other community will reject, the government can still
insist.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, because the word used here is consultation only. The
government can also learn from those who have been living in those areas
for
years and who know what the possible situation would be, if these urban
poor are transferred to those communities.
MR. BENGZON: Will the Commissioner read the proposal again?
MR. REGALADO: In other words, this last sentence would be: No
resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall take place without consultation
with THEM AND
the communities WHERE THEY ARE to be relocated.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, just one more point.

MR. MAAMBONG: In the original formulation, it is my understanding that the
one to be consulted is the communities where the urban or rural dwellers
are.
With this amendment, the communities to be consulted are the communities
where they are to be relocated. Is that correct?
MR. REGALADO: No, there will be dual consultation.
MR. MAAMBONG: Both?
MR. REGALADO: Both.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I ask the proponent one clarificatory question as to the
meaning of consultation? I ask this because in our experience, the
government
makes claims to consultation but it merely goes through the motion of
consultation. We would like to envision here a consultation that would
provide the
communities adequate information on who are the relocatees and where
they will be going.
MR. REGALADO: The word consultation was proposed by the Committee, so
it is for the Committee to give its own interpretation as to the extent, the
scope,
the effect, the means and the modes of consultation.
MR. BENNAGEN: I mentioned that because we feel that consultation should
be qualified in terms of making adequate information available to those who
are
concerned so that decisions are made on the basis of the best available
information.
MR. REGALADO: Yes.
MR BENNAGEN: That is the meaning we have here.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, as the Committee originally intended the word

consultation to mean.
MR. BENGZON: Will the Gentleman read the amendment again, please?
MR. REGALADO: The last sentence of Section 12 will read: No resettlement
of urban or rural dwellers shall take place without consultation with THEM
AND
the communities WHERE THEY ARE to be relocated.
MS. NIEVA: We accept the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What happens to the last phrase?
MS. NIEVA: The last phrase and their involvement in its planning and
implementation was already eliminated.
THE PRESIDENT: That was eliminated already.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before we put the matter to a vote, will the proponent yield
to an amendment as a consequence of the Davide amendment? So, the
sentence will
read: No resettlement of urban AND rural POOR dwellers. . . This is in
consonance with line 1.
MR. REGALADO: The amendment is accepted.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I just say something?
MR. BENNAGEN: We may not have to qualify rural dwellers with the adjective
POOR because in cases where there is massive relocation, like relocations
brought about by construction of dams, even those who are not really rural
poor are included.
MR. SARMIENTO: With that explanation, I withdraw my amendment.

MR. MAAMBONG: To avoid the repetition of the word urban or rural, will
Commissioner Regalado accept an amendment to his amendment which will
read: No
resettlement OF SUCH dwellers. Thus, we eliminate the words urban or
rural and insert SUCH.
MR. REGALADO: That amendment is accepted insofar as I am concerned but
that is the wording of the Committee so I think they should be consulted.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we go back to the same problem
because if we say SUCH, we referring to urban and rural poor dwellers. So,
I think we
should retain urban and rural dwellers.
MR. MAAMBONG: I agree.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we retain the original phraseology.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what we have now is the Regalado amendment.
Is there any objection to the amendment of Commissioner Regalado?
(Silence) The Chair hears the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more registered proponents of
amendments to this provision, so may I ask that we take a vote on the whole
provision.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Chairman now read Section 12.
MS. NIEVA: Section 12 now reads as follows: Urban and rural poor dwellers
shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished except in accordance
with
law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement of urban and rural
dwellers shall take place with adequate consultation with them and with the
communities where they are to be relocated.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to Section 12 as read by the
honorable Chairman of Committee on Social Justice?
MR. DAVIDE: I heard the Committee Chairman reading urban and rural
dwellers. It should be or.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, just for verification. Do the records show
the words without consultation or without adequate consultation?
THE PRESIDENT: Without adequate consultation.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several
hand.)
The results show 34 votes in favor, 1 against and no abstention; Section 12 is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized
to amend Section 13 which is now Section 12 under the subtitle health.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: We had deferred considering the last two paragraphs of the
section on labor. Since Commissioner Aquino is back, may we go back there,
with the
indulgence of Commissioner Nolledo?
Madam President, may we have a suspension of the session to organize
ourselves?
It was 4:37 p.m.
At 5:14 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Regalado
Maambong presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is resumed.
Mr. Floor Leader, will you kindly indicate where we are now.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is a request from the Committee that
Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, by now the body should have been
furnished with copies of the reformulated section on labor, pertaining to
Section 3.
May I be allowed to read it while we are waiting for the xerox copies?
MS. AQUINO: The reformulation would account for a reformatting by way of
completing the paragraphs instead of mere enumerations, and some
transpositions
which would best define the concepts.
Section 3 reads: The State shall afford EVERY protection to labor and
promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL.
It shall guarantee the rights of ALL workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted activities including the
right to strike in ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
SECURITY OF TENURE, just and humane conditions of work, A LIVING WAGE,
and TO PARTICIPATE
IN the policy and decision-making PROCESSES affecting their rights and
benefits AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
The State shall promote THE PRINCIPLE OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS IN settling THEIR disputes THROUGH
THE USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES,
INCLUDING CONCILIATION, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR MUTUAL
COMPLIANCE THEREWITH.
THE STATE shall regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND
EMPLOYERS, RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just share
and the right of BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION AND
GROWTH.
This reformulation took off basically from what we had voted upon in
subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3, and we have incorporated the
proposed
amendments of Commissioners Azcuna, Foz, Colayco, Regalado and the
Committee.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Before the suspension of the session, I was on this last
paragraph where I was supposed to introduce an amendment, but we had to
wait for the
reformulation. With respect to this last paragraph, on the third sentence
thereof, I am proposing an amendment by insertion of the word EQUIVALENT
between
the words the and right to read: share and the equivalent right of
business enterprises to reasonable returns.
The reason for this is that the original draft stated the corresponding rights,
which are very vague and ambiguous. Then I noticed that the word
corresponding was eliminated and that the words the right were simply
put. In the case of labor, it is stated that it must be RECOGNIZING,
FOREMOST,
the right of labor to its just share. To put this on an equipoise, since all
persons should be equal before the law, I propose this amendment: and
the
EQUIVALENT right of business enterprises to reasonable returns on
investments . . .
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Before the Committee responds,
we would like to know from Commissioner Aquino if there is a reformulation
of
paragraphs (c) and (d) because I think Commissioner Regalado is now
proposing to amend paragraph (d).
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. There is a reformulation of the two
paragraphs.
MR. REGALADO: I am using the reformulated draft as furnished me.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is it the reformulated draft he is
using now?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. But there are some minor corrections.
The omission of the word corresponding was not intended; it must have
been
a typographical error.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we be furnished a copy? We are
just guessing here.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Even the Chair is waiting for its
copy. In the meantime, may we just proceed, Commissioner Regalado?
MR. REGALADO: Yes. Since Commissioner Aquino said that the word
corresponding should have been there, I am proposing the change to
EQUIVALENT right
because corresponding right is very vague; there can be no corresponding
right of capital, shall we say, capital vis-a-vis labor. So, I am proposing the
EQUIVALENT right on the part of capital also to realize its growth potential.
Equivalent does not mean equal.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : What does the Committee say?
BISHOP BACANI: The understanding then is that the meaning is not equal.
We prefer the word corresponding, I believe, because we do not wish to
speak in
terms of equality here nor we do not deny equality. You do not compare an
orange to an apple, and say it is equal to an apple. As you can see, the terms
are not completely parallel. We are vindicating almost the right of labor to its
just share and what is said regarding the right of business enterprises is
to reasonable returns on investments, expansion and growth. So we are not
speaking of two completely equivalent things. That is why we used the word
corresponding.
MR. REGALADO: As I said, the word equivalent does not mean equal
because you cannot equalize rights pertaining to different antecedents
because
corresponding is a little too vague. Just what is meant by corresponding
rights?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is the Committee accepting the
amendment or not?
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we would rather submit it to the body for
a decision.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Rigos is
recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Do I understand that the word FOREMOST here refers to the
right of labor to its just share or also to the right of business enterprises?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Will the Committee respond?
MS. AQUINO: If the Gentleman would read the paragraph, when we say that
the State shall regulate, the reference to the FOREMOST right means that
the
guiding or the polar star in the regulation of the State regarding the
relationship between workers and employers is the primacy of labor.
REV. RIGOS: Probably a comma (,) should be inserted after share to make it
clear that FOREMOST is intended to refer to the right of labor to its just
share.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is another amendment to the same
subsection. May I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Just a moment, Mr. Floor Leader.
There is a pending proposed amendment of Commissioner Regalado. Will
Commissioner
Regalado rephrase the amendment so that the body will know?
MR. REGALADO: The entire paragraph will read:
THE STATE shall regulate the RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND
EMPLOYERS, RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just share,
and the EQUIVALENT
right of BUSINESS ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns on investments,
EXPANSION AND GROWTH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The proposed amendment is to
change the word corresponding to EQUIVALENT?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Davide is

recognized. MR. DAVIDE: I would like to propose an amendment to the
proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: On the second line, instead of labor it should be WORKERS;
that is, the right of WORKERS, then change its to THEIR. On the third line,
change business enterprises to EMPLOYERS. So, the provision will now
read: THE STATE shall regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND
EMPLOYERS,
RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right of WORKERS to THEIR just share and
the right of EMPLOYERS to reasonable returns . . .
MR. REGALADO: I accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee prefers the retention of the
word labor because of its positive connotation of a capability for force.
Besides, it is a generally accepted and settled usage in labor and
management relations that you would refer to workers as labor.
MR. DAVIDE: This is just to harmonize it with the first line. We speak of the
relations between workers and employers. It did not speak of the relations
between labor and capital.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, likewise in the preceding paragraph, it
also speaks of workers and employers.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: There might be a problem of conceptual symmetry here. When
we say reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION AND GROWTH, we
usually refer
to business enterprises, not to employers.
MR. DAVIDE: What about, say, a single proprietorship? We do not consider it
as a business enterprise; so, it is an individual employer.
MS. AQUINO: It could be included, Mr. Presiding Officer. It may be a generic
reference to all kinds of businesses.
MR. DAVIDE: If the idea is to harmonize the concept, it should be relations

between labor and capital. The first sentence should read: THE STATE shall
regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL, RECOGNIZING,
FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just share and the right of BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES to
reasonable returns.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee insists on the retention of
the phrase BUSINESS ENTERPRISES because employers or capital has
its
connotation with reference to money and . . .
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: On the matter of using the term business enterprises, I am
envisioning, for instance, the situation of a sectarian school like the school I
am connected with. It is not considered a business enterprise because it is a
corporation solely run by the Benedictine community. Yet, they are
employers
and, in determining the right of labor, do we not also have to take into
account the reasonable returns on investments, expansion and growth of
that
academic community? Otherwise, they will be out of the concept of
business enterprises, because they are not primarily designed for business.
So, I think
the generic terms of employers and employees, as used in the opening
line of that last paragraph and in the next preceding paragraph, do not make
only
for a symmetrical formulation; they are broad enough to cover the relations
between the so-called labor and the so-called capital. So, we use the word
employers because they are not necessarily capital- or revenue- or profitoriented.
MR. AZCUNA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Azcuna is
recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Would Commissioner Regalado accept PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
instead of employers so that the provision will read: AND THE
CORRESPONDING OR
EQUIVALENT RIGHT OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to reasonable returns on
investments, EXPANSION AND GROWTH.
MR. REGALADO: Firstly, that was a proposed amendment to my amendment

by Commissioner Rodrigo. I think the question should be addressed to him. I
just
followed it up for purposes of symmetry.
MR. AZCUNA: I see. What does Commissioner Davide say?
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment is accepted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Will the Committee react now to
this present formulation because there seems to be an acceptance of
Commissioner
Davide to the word suggested by Commissioner Azcuna?
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, if we use PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, how
about government enterprises? Are they employers?
MR. AZCUNA: The government has no right to a return on its investment for
public service. So, it has no right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Could we perhaps resolve this
issue if both Commissioner Davide and Commissioner Regalado will approach
the
Committee and formulate whatever suggestions they have? They have been
saying so many words and I think the body is now confused.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I wanted to convey the concern that Commissioner Bacani had
already stated that the use of the term private enterprise might prejudice
the
right to the same protection under this section of various classes of workers
and employees in government enterprises and in the public service itself.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair declares a suspension
of the session.
It was 5:30 p.m.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that Commissioner Regalado be
recognized.
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think the position of the Committee is
that they will use the phrase the right of labor to its just share and the
right of ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns. So, the word enterprises,
taking away the word business, will cover all possible enterprises not
necessarily for business.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : For the benefit of the other
Members of the Commission let us take it up one by one. We are now on the
fourth
paragraph. The first line states: THE STATE shall regulate THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN WORKERS AND . . . Does the Gentleman have any amendment
there?
MR. REGALADO: None, Mr. Presiding Officer.
The next line, labor to its just share, is all right. It is on the third line that I
suggested the amendment to eliminate BUSINESS such that it will
read: and the EQUIVALENT right of ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns.
The reason I put EQUIVALENT right of ENTERPRISES is to put it as an
equipoise with
the word FOREMOST on the second line as insisted upon by the
Committee.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Will the Committee now indicate
what amendatory word has been accepted by the Committee and what
amendatory word has
not been accepted?
MS. AQUINO: The Committee has accepted the substitution of the word
LABOR in place of the word WORKERS and ENTERPRISES in place of the
term BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES. However, the proposed amendment to substitute the word
EQUIVALENT for corresponding is not acceptable to the Committee. We
would submit
it to the body for a vote.
May the Committee be allowed to explain? It is the shared sentiment that the
substitution of the word corresponding with EQUIVALENT would
effectively
reduce the potency of the word FOREMOST.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is Commissioner Regalado
insisting on his amendment of adding the word EQUIVALENT?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, to be voted upon by the body, because of their
insistence on putting the word FOREMOST insofar as labor is concerned.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Is EQUIVALENT or CORRESPONDING the word to be
inserted?
MR. REGALADO: The amendment of the Committee omitted the word
appropriate in the drafting.
MS. AQUINO: Corresponding.
MR. RODRIGO: Corresponding.
MR. REGALADO: Lack of corresponding.
MR. RODRIGO: I am asking whether the amendment of Commissioner
Regalado is to insert the word EQUIVALENT.
MR. REGALADO: EQUIVALENT right instead of corresponding right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : We will take this up one by one.
Will the Committee now indicate again the amendatory word of
Commissioner Regalado
which has been accepted so that we do not have to put that to a vote?
MS. AQUINO: The last paragraph, as amended, reads: THE STATE shall
regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS,
RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right
of labor to its just share, and the corresponding right of ENTERPRISES to
reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION AND GROWTH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : That is acceptable now to the
Committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is there any objection? (Silence)
We will go now to the word EQUIVALENT. Will the Committee indicate again
where that word is supposed to be inserted?
MS. AQUINO: On the penultimate line of the fourth paragraph, between the
words the and right, there is supposed to be the word corresponding.
The
omission is a typographical error and now Commissioner Regalado seeks to
delete this word and substitute the word EQUIVALENT.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair will now put it to a
vote.
As many as are in favor of the insertion of the word EQUIVALENT between
the words the and right on the third line of the last paragraph of this
draft, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
their hand.)
is lost.
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: There is another typographical error on the second line of
paragraph 3. There was an omission of the word PREFERENTIAL before the
word use.
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is a committee amendment, I would like to propose an
amendment. Between the words employers and and on the third
paragraph, insert
the following: AND THE PREFERENTIAL USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES; then on

the second line, add s to dispute and delete the words through the. On
the third
line, delete the words use of voluntary modes, so that the entire paragraph
will read: The state shall promote the principle of shared responsibility
between workers and employers AND THE PREFERENTIAL USE OF
VOLUNTARY MODES in settling their disputes, including conciliation, and
enforcement of their
mutual compliance therewith.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The amendment as proposed by
Commissioner Davide has been accepted by the Committee.
approved.
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, my amendment is an amendment by
addition. This is coauthored by Commissioner Foz.
After the word share, add the words: IN THE FRUITS OF PRODUCTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Will the Gentleman kindly
indicate the paragraph.
MR. SARMIENTO: On the fourth paragraph, add the words IN THE FRUITS OF
PRODUCTION. May I briefly explain?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: The words just share seem incomplete; they could mean
just share in the ownership, management and profit of enterprise.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The proposed amendment of
Commissioner Sarmiento has been accepted by the Committee.
approved.
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: On lines 2 and 3 of paragraph 4, I suggest that we eliminate
foremost and corresponding. There are some adjectives that are
meaningful
like preferential. The words foremost and corresponding do not seem
to add any substance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair does not understand
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla. What specifically is the
Gentlemans
proposed amendment?
MR. PADILLA: On lines 2 and 3, eliminate foremost and corresponding.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment,
Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Committee does not accept
the proposed amendment. Does the Gentleman insist on a vote?
MR. PADILLA: May I explain briefly my amendment and then I ask for a vote.
The sharing of responsibility and likewise the sharing of the benefits of
industrial peace are rights not only of labor but also of the enterprise.
Actually, if the enterprise does not earn or realize profits as reasonable
returns on investments, if there are no profits or net income, then there can
hardly be any basis for the share of labor in the fruits of production. They
are joint rights, concomitant, mutually dependent on each other. So, I feel
that the adjectives or the words foremost and corresponding do not add
to
the real intent of more productivity, which we fervently expect from
industrial peace. Both factors should derive enough earnings or profits for
reasonable
returns to capital and a just share to labor. When the word just justifies
share, that is meaningful; but the adjectives foremost and
corresponding
do not add any substantial significance.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Bacani is

recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: This has a psychological impact I believe. In actual
situations when, for example, the price of raw materials is raised, the
enterprises
easily accept that, but they would not so easily raise the price of labor or the
salaries of workers. This is the last thing they will accept to raise. In
other words, the primacy of the human component is in practice not actually
recognized; that is why it is important to indicate that it is foremost.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is the Committee now prepared to
submit the matter to a vote?
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Padilla is
recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I cannot fully agree that this is only for psychological effect
because we must be realistic.
BISHOP BACANI: That is part of reality the psychology of people: the way
they react, the way they look at things.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Shall we now put the amendment
to a vote?
As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
hand.)
is approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized to present an
amendment.

recognized.
This is a very simple amendment. On Section 13 instead of EVERY before
protection, use the word FULL.
MS. AQUINO: We accept the amendment.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Quesada is
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to propose an amendment to this.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we did not understand the amendment
of the Gentleman. We were looking at Section 13 but the proceedings were
so fast.
It does not matter to me anyway.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : For the information of
Commissioner de Castro, on Section 13, line 1, what was sought to be
amended and what was
accepted by the committee is the change of the word every to FULL. It was
already approved.
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: I think a little confusion arises here because of the fact that
there is a typographical error instead of Section 13, it should be Section
3. So, the other Commissioners are looking at the end of the Article while we
are referring to Section 3.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair corrects itself; it should
be Section 3.
MR. RAMA: For the last amendment to Section 3, I ask that Commissioner Foz
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is an amendment that seeks to add a
phrase after the word therewith on the third paragraph. The words to be
inserted
are: IN THE PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
MS. AQUINO: We accept the amendment, except that it might sound a bit
awkward because the word promote appears already in the beginning of
the sentence.
But in principle, we accept the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would Commissioner Foz accept an amendment to his
amendment? Instead of PROMOTION, how about the word ACHIEVEMENT
so there will be no
redundancy. So it will read: IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
MR. FOZ: IN THE REALIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : So the word now is
REALIZATION. What does the Committee say?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The proposed amendment is
accepted.
approved.
MR. RAMA: There are no more proponents of amendments to Section 3, so I
ask that a vote be taken on the whole Section 3 after its reading.
MR. ROMULO: May we ask the high-speed train to slow down a bit because
the Committee has some suggestions.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to propose an amendment
which has been accepted by the members of the Committee and that is, to
bring back
the original provision which reads: The State shall afford FULL protection to
labor, LOCAL AND OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, and promote
full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
In the public hearing the problems of unorganized as well as of the overseas
or migrant workers have often been mentioned. The reason we did not have
any
special section for this particular group is because of this one statement that
would already cover the concern for these particular members of the labor
sector. So as we had already provided such protection to fishermen and to
farmworkers, I believe . . .
MR. JAMIR: Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Quesada was just
about to finish her sentence; will the Commissioner continue.
MS. QUESADA: As I was saying, we have already provided a special provision
for fishermen, and the inclusion of this particular provision would already put
the stress that we are considering the plight of the unorganized and overseas
workers. This was in the original provision but was deleted because of the
demand for brevity. I have appealed and the Committee has reconsidered
this particular provision.
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Jamir is
recognized.
MR. JAMIR: May I know whether that is a reconsideration?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Floor Leader will respond to
that because it is the recollection of the Chair that this first sentence has
already been approved. Will the Floor Leader please respond to the
parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. RAMA. It seems that there needs to be a motion for reconsideration.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we go into such a motion for
reconsideration, I would like to go back to a previous amendment which was
accepted by
the Committee regarding the phrase in the realization of industrial peace. I
think the more proper word is INTEREST.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Just a moment, please. Let us put
everything in order. The phrase in the realization of industrial peace has
been
accepted by the Committee and since nobody objected, it was approved by
the body. So, the Gentleman is now asking for a reconsideration of the
approval of
his amendment, in the realization of industrial peace.
MR. FOZ: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, and this has the clearance of the
Committee. I would like to change the word realization to FURTHERANCE
of
industrial peace.
MS. AQUINO. For a while, we are trying to agree on the alternative formula.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair declares a suspension
of the session.
It was 5:59 p.m.
Is it the understanding of the Chair, Commissioner Foz, that in the approved
amendment on paragraph 3 which reads in the realization of industrial
peace,
the Commissioner would wish to amend the word realization to some other
word?
MR. FOZ: The amendment is to change the phrase in the realization of
industrial peace to the following phrase: TO FOSTER industrial peace.
May we know the reaction of the Committee?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair will now treat this as a
primary amendment to an approved amendment.
accepted.
approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized.
MR. JAMIR: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Jamir is
recognized.
The Floor Leader will please respond once more to the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. RAMA: What is the parliamentary inquiry?
MR. JAMIR: My parliamentary inquiry is whether the statement of
Commissioner Quesada is a motion for reconsideration.
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee volunteers to answer the question. If the
Gentleman remembers, yesterday when we decided to vote on paragraphs
(a) and (b) of
Section 3, they were subject to the proposed recasting by Commissioner
Colayco.
MR. JAMIR: So, this is not a reconsideration.
MS. AQUINO: This is not a reconsideration. The Committee, on its own
initiative, recasted the whole paragraphs in cooperation with some of the
Commissioners who have shown interest in this particular section, and the
omission originally agreed upon is now being subjected to another

amendment.
MR. JAMIR: But I understand that we have already approved the first
paragraph.
MS. AQUINO: We did. But if I remember correctly, it was subject to recasting.
MR. JAMIR: In that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am making it of record that I
will file a motion for reconsideration of the second sentence of Section 5.
I voted in favor of this and tomorrow, at the opportune time, I will ask for a
reconsideration so that I may be able to introduce my amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair takes note of that
reservation.
MS. AQUINO: The particular reservation on the recasting by Justice Colayco
pertained only to Section 3. But the Gentleman filed a motion for
reconsideration.
MR. JAMIR: But I am now making it of record my right to ask for a
reconsideration of the second sentence of Section 5 because I voted in favor
of that.
MS. AQUINO: That is independent of the proceedings on Section 3.
MR. JAMIR: Yes, that is independent; that is different.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, I was confused because the Gentleman mentioned it
immediately after our deliberations on Section 3.
MR. JAMIR: No, I am afraid that the hour is quite late, that is why I rushed to
make of record my motion for reconsideration.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): That reservation, Commissioner
Jamir, has already been noted by the Chair. We will now address ourselves to
the
proposed amendment on the first paragraph of Section 3 to add, after the
word labor on the first line, LOCAL AND OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND
UNORGANIZED
and a comma (,). Is that the correct amendment, Commissioner Quesada?
MS. QUESADA: The State shall afford FULL protection to labor, LOCAL AND
OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, and promote full employment
and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in support of Commissioner Quesadas
manifestation, I move for the reconsideration of Section 3 to incorporate all
her amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : It has already been clarified by
Commissioner Aquino that there was merely a recasting of the section; so,
there is
no need for a reconsideration.
MR. SARMIENTO: Then I withdraw my motion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The motion for reconsideration is
withdrawn.
What does the Committee say to the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Quesada?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, we accept the proposed amendment.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there are no more registered amenders to
this section and I do not think there are suggestions from the Committee; so,
I
ask that we take a vote on the whole Section 3.
MR. GASCON: I would like to make a clarification on the second paragraph of
Section 3.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Gascon is

recognized.
MR. GASCON: Just for the record, as we approved it last Wednesday, on the
third line of the second paragraph, after wage, the body approved a period
(.)
and the phrase they shall also participate. To make it clear, the last phrase
of that sentence only refers to participation in policy- and
decision-making and not to the security of tenure, just and humane
conditions, and the living wage. This was approved by a vote of 35 in favor
and 2
against. This was the Bernas amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Will anybody respond to that
statement of Commissioner Gascon?
MS. AQUINO: The Committee accepts the amendment. It is a matter of
restyling.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : We are now ready to put the
whole Section 3 to a vote. For the benefit of all the Members, I would suggest
that one
of the Committee members, who is in complete possession of all the
amendments, read the whole Section 3.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: This is a minor point but it is important. On paragraph 2, line 3,
after activities, there should be a comma (,).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Gentleman is presenting a
perfecting amendment by adding a comma (,).
MR. FOZ: There was an amendment in the previous draft.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): What does the Committee say?
MS. AQUINO: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is there any objection to that
perfecting amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
Will the Committee please read the whole Section 3 so that everybody will
understand before we take a vote.
MS. AQUINO: The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of
employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of
tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in
settling
disputes including conciliation, and the enforcement of their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and
the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, expansion and
growth.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : As many as are in favor of the
whole Section 3, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
hand.)
The results show 34 votes in favor and none against; the whole Section 3 is,
approved.
MR. COLAYCO: May I explain my vote of yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Colayco is
recognized.
COMMISSIONER COLAYCO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. COLAYCO: I am constrained to vote yes because I agree with the main
thrust of this section. But I want to make it of record that I still believe we are
too profligate and generous with words.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: We now move on to Section 13 as denominated under the subtitle
Health.
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee requests a suspension of session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is suspended.
It was 6:11 p.m.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is a consensus among the
Commissioners that we jump to the section under the subtitle Women.
May I ask that the foremost expert in women, Commissioner Romulo, be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Romulo, the expert
in women, is recognized. (Laughter)
MR. ROMULO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
My amendment is to combine Sections 16 and 17 to read as follows: The

State shall PROTECT THE working women by providing SAFE AND HEALTHFUL
working
conditions, PARTICULARLY RELATING to their maternal functions, AND SUCH
facilities AS will RELEASE THEIR ENERGIES AND TALENTS FOR the service of
the
NATION.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee joyfully accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair would like a
clarification first. On the fourth line of the draft, the Commissioner has AND
SUCH
FACILITIES AS WILL LIBERATE; the Gentleman changed it to another word.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, because Commissioners such as Commissioners Regalado,
Ople and Azcuna have contributed to the metamorphosis of this paragraph.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : So, instead of LIBERATE, what is
it now?
MR. ROMULO: RELEASE.
MR. OPLE: Will the proponent accept a minor amendment?
MR, ROMULO: I will consider it.
MR. OPLE: The State shall PROVIDE FACILITIES TO RELEASE THE ENERGIES
AND TALENTS. Is it facilities or opportunities that release energies and
talents?
MR. ROMULO: I took it from the draft of the Committee, and it said
facilities. I myself am not sure what those facilities consist of. (Laughter)
But the
Committee has accepted my amendments so may I refer it to the
Committee?
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: May I just make an amendment to the amendment and
that is by including a phrase that will accommodate the disadvantaged
women. This
provision is for working women and although many women are marginalized,
there are some who are more marginalized than others; namely, the
illiterates,
particularly in terms of working conditions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Where does Commissioner
Rosario Braid propose to insert the word DISADVANTAGED?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Working women usually connotes working in the
formal economy. There are illiterates.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Committee has accepted the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo. But probably, we should first
dispose of
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid. What does the
Committee say to that?
MS. AQUINO: The Committee believes that it is an unnecessary surplusage
and we regret that we cannot accept it.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Working women usually connotes working in the
formal economy. There are many women who do not really work in the formal
workplace.
They are marginalized and we would like to include them.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Committee which has
accepted the proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo does not seem
to be in favor of
accepting Commissioner Rosario Braids proposed amendment to the
amendment.
Will the Commissioner insist on her amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I would not mind if we are able to come up with a
provision that will really address itself to the marginalized women where the
concern
is more than just providing them safe and healthful conditions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair suggests that we first
dispose of the primary amendment after which we can probably take up the
amendment
to the amendment.
The parliamentary situation is that we have a proposed amendment which

has been accepted by the Committee.
MR. OPLE: May I return to my previous remark which has the embryo of a
proposed amendment. I thought that to complete the sense of the sentence,
I could
invite the Committee to consider adding AND OPPORTUNITIES after
facilities so that it will read: facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES AS will RELEASE
THEIR
ENERGIES AND TALENTS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Will the Committee respond to
that?
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, before the Committee responds, will
Commissioner Ople yield to an amendment to his amendment?
Instead of using RELEASE, we use ENHANCE so that it will read: ENHANCE
THEIR ENERGIES AND TALENTS.
MR. OPLE: The enhancement is an additive in order to improve without
changing.
MR. SARMIENTO: What about RELEASE AND ENHANCE?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it will diminish the meaning of release. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Perhaps we should present that
formulation to the Committee because this amendment has already been
accepted by the
Committee and it is actually in its jurisdiction.
What does the Committee say to the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Sarmiento?
MS. AQUINO: We would like the advice of the original proponent,
Commissioner Romulo, on this matter.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized while Commissioner Romulo is still busy with something else.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The President is recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just offer a comment. I do not see why we will need
these facilities to release our energies. Our energies are there but these
facilities will enhance or, in other words, make our energies perhaps more
productive. But ENHANCE, I believe is a better word than RELEASE.
MR. SARMIENTO: Besides, Mr. Presiding Officer, the word RELEASE has a
malicious connotation.
THE PRESIDENT: I support that statement Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The parliamentary situation is
that the proposed amendment to change the word RELEASE to ENHANCE
has been
presented by the Chair to the Committee but the Committee threw it back to
the proponent, Commissioner Romulo. So we will now hear from
Commissioner Romulo
who will give us the right interpretation.
MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I address a question to the proponent
of the amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Nieva may
proceed.
MS. NIEVA: Does the Commissioner prefer releasing whatever energies to
promoting the welfare and well-being of women.
MR. ROMULO: I was trying to compress the two ideas. Actually, my original
wording was LIBERATE.
MS. NIEVA: But how about the welfare and well-being of women? Is it still
encompassed?
MR. ROMULO: How about HARNESS THEIR ENERGIES AND TALENTS?
MS. NIEVA: I do not know. I am not so concerned about the energies and
talents; I think the welfare and well-being of women is more important since
this is
a social justice provision. It is my personal feeling that we placed this
provision to protect the welfare and well-being of women and not so much to
harness their talents and capabilities for nation-building. The protection of
the welfare and well-being of women, for me, is basic.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : May the Chair ask a clarification
on that? The proponent does not accept the change of the word RELEASE
to
ENHANCE.
MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask for a suspension of the
session?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is suspended for one
minute.
It was 6:27 p.m.
Has Commissioner Romulo conferred with the Committee?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. After having released our energies in
combination with the Committee, we have agreed on a common
amendment.
Commissioner Aquino will now read it.
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The section will read: The State shall PROTECT THE working
women by providing SAFE AND HEALTHFUL working conditions, TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT their
maternal functions, AND SUCH facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT will
ENHANCE THEIR WELFARE AND WELL-BEING TO REALIZE THEIR FULL
POTENTIAL IN the service of
the NATION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Has the proponent heard the
formulation? Is that what the Commissioner agreed on?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: There are no more proponents of any amendments to the section
on women. So, I ask that we vote on the whole section.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : May the Chair know from
Commissioner Romulo what would be the numbering of the section now,
considering that this is
proposed to be the combination of Sections 16 and 17?
MR. ROMULO: Section 17 is now deleted and combined with Section 16.
MR. RAMA: May I ask the Committee to read the full text of Section 16.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Will the Committee now read the
whole Section 16 for purposes of voting?
MS. NIEVA: The State shall PROTECT THE working women by providing SAFE
AND HEALTHFUL working conditions, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT their maternal
functions, AND
SUCH facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT will ENHANCE THEIR WELFARE AND
WELL-BEING TO REALIZE THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IN the service of the
NATION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair is now putting Section
16, as read, to a vote.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; Section 16 is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Before we adjourn, Mr. Presiding Officer, there is only one
proponent of amendments to all the three provisions under the subtitle
Minors. May
I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized?
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: The second sentence on the section on Minors will read as
follows: INFANTS, PARTICULARLY ORPHANS AND ABANDONED CHILDREN, ARE
LIKEWISE
ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE.
MR. GASCON: Will Commissioner Davide accept an amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: May I hear it, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. GASCON: Delete the word PARTICULARLY because orphans and

abandoned children may not necessarily be infants.
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment is gladly accepted.
MS. NIEVA: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Davide, as of the
moment, that section will be Section 18. Is that correct?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, it would be renumbered accordingly. But it will be a new
sentence to what appears to be Section 18 under the heading Minors.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide has been accepted by the Committee.
approved.
MS. NIEVA: Are we to understand that that replaces the whole section?
MR. BENGZON: Was that an additional paragraph or a replacement of the
existing provision?
MR. DAVIDE: It is an additional sentence. So, may we request a vote on the
whole section.
MS. NIEVA: So, how would the entire section read?
MR.-DAVIDE: The entire section will read: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE
SPECIAL PROTECTION TO MINORS ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS, AND SHALL
PROHIBIT THEIR
EXPLOITATION AND INSURE THEIR FULL DEVELOPMENT. INFANTS, ORPHANS
AND ABANDONED CHILDREN ARE LIKEWISE ENTITLED TO THE SPECIAL
PROTECTION OF THE STATE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Why do we not just combine SPECIAL and ESPECIALLY and
say THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION TO MINORS, INFANTS .
. .
MR. DAVIDE: So, the Gentleman wants it inserted in the first. So, the
provision will read: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION TO
INFANTS, ORPHANS,
ABANDONED CHILDREN AND MINORS, ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS, AND
SHALL PROHIBIT THEIR EXPLOITATION AND INSURE THEIR FULL
DEVELOPMENT. That would be only one
sentence then.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is that an acceptable formulation
to the Committee?
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: May I just inquire? It seems to me that there is a move all over
the world to discourage minors to work. But here we are referring to working
minors?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. TINGSON: May I please have an explanation?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, in the Philippines, we still classify persons below 21 as
minors, but above 14 or even above 13, they can already work. We would
like to
give special protection to that age level.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Why do we not just say MINORS
and include working minors, nonworking minors and sick minors?
MR. DAVIDE: There is still a distinction between minors and infants.
MR. MONSOD: No, I am only suggesting that we delete the words
ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS because we are already stating SPECIAL
PROTECTION TO and then
enumerate. So, a minor is part of that phrase.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer,. when the Gentleman speaks of working
minors, I suppose we are referring to minors allowed to work under the law.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.

MR. SUAREZ: Not like an ordinary newsboy, for example, selling newspapers
at street intersections.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer. This would refer, for
instance, to those allowed to work in apprenticeship.
MR. SUAREZ: Like in McDonalds, for example.
MR. DAVIDE: We also have to consider minor young girls being abused by
some enterprising businessmen in indecent acts or shows. These are the
main
concerns.
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner would not be extending any kind of
protection by the State to those newsboys whom we see every morning?
MR. DAVIDE: They would be included because the phrase is ESPECIALLY
WORKING MINORS, meaning to say, that the protection would be to all but
special
emphasis should be given to working minors.
MR: SARMIENTO: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : What is the parliamentary inquiry
of Commissioner Sarmiento?
MR. SARMIENTO: I understand, Mr. Presiding Officer, that we have a provision
on minors and children in the Declaration of Principles. Is this a repetition
of that provision? May we be enlightened on this point?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : I am not particularly aware of that
provision in the Declaration of Principles, but perhaps Commissioner Davide
could respond to the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. DAVIDE: I understand that if the proposed Declaration of Principles would
only be a copy of the 1973 provision that the State shall assist the youth in
their social, physical and intellectual development, that would be completely
an entirely different concept. It would cover the youth but it is a very
broad mandate or principle. This is a specific one.
MR. SARMIENTO: I understand, Mr. Presiding Officer, from the member of the
Committee on Declaration of Principles that we have a similar provision. May
I
ask Commissioner Tingson to enlighten us on this point.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: I have in my possession the reported section. It reads:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic social institution. The State shall equally
protect
the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of
conception. The natural right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth
for
civic efficiency in the development of moral character shall receive the aid
and support of the government.
The last paragraph of Section 10 reads:
The State shall protect children from all forms of neglect, cruelty and
exploitation particularly in conditions harmful to their physical, mental or
moral
well-being.
So, that is covered in our Declaration of Principles.
MR. DAVIDE: My proposal then would be to delete this particular heading and
to transfer it to the Declaration of Principles. In other words, we make
reservations for possible amendments to the Declaration of Principles and
State Policy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair takes note of the
intention of Commissioner Davide. But before we present that to the
Committee, we have
to dispose of the parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner Sarmiento,
considering the reading of the-provision on minors in the Declaration of
Principles.
What is now the pleasure of the Gentleman?
MR. SARMIENTO: With that clarification, I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.
It has been completely satisfied.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : There is now a pending intention
of Commissioner Davide or is it a motion to transfer this provision to the
Declaration of Principles? We will have to present that before the Committee.
MR. DAVIDE: As an amendment to the proposed section in the Declaration of

Principles.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : This is properly Section 18; it is
properly under the jurisdiction of the Committee. So, we have to ask the
Committee about it.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we agree.
MR. BENGZON: We agree that this be transferred to the Declaration of
Principles.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : That solves the problem then.
MR. RAMA: There are only two more sections, Mr. Presiding Officer, apart
from health. This is under the subtitle Role and Rights of Peoples
Organization. There is only one proponent and he has an amendment to
these two sections. May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Before the Chair recognizes
Commissioner Davide, we have here the provision on Role and Rights of
Peoples
Organization, Sections 19 and 20. Does the Committee have any formulation
other than the one which I have?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I am a member of the Committee but I would like to ask for a
definition of peoples organizations.
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Are we now on Sections 19 and 20? Did we skip the
provisions on health?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : We did not; we only deferred
consideration of the provisions on health.
MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer, some members of the Committee say that
they are too tired to tackle these provisions tonight and they think there may
be
more changes than we have anticipated. We suggest to defer this until
tomorrow.
MR. RAMA: I ask that we adjourn the session tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is there any objection to the
motion to adjourn? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is adjourned
until
tomorrow at nine oclock in the morning.
It was 6:47 p.m.
Footnotes:
R.C.C. NO. 52
Saturday, August 9, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Crispino M. de Castro.
PRAYER
MR. DE CASTRO: Almighty God: We beseech Thee once again to guide our
minds and our hearts so that the thoughts and feelings that may emanate
from each of
us will be those of the Filipino people on whose behalf we seek to fashion a
fundamental law that shall embody our collective ideals and aspirations.
Enlighten us, O Lord. Open our eyes and minds. Give us the courage and the
strength to see and understand those ideals and proposals that may differ
from
our own.
Let the light of reason shine on our discussions and debates so that we may
exchange ideas, thoughts and arguments with truth, clarity and sincerity
towards democratic ideals. This, our people expect from us.
Help us, O Lord, to finish this Constitution as early as possible because
millions of Filipinos are awaiting the day when we shall live in peace and in
glory.
Thank you, O Lord, Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present *
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present *
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present *
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present *
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Absent
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present *
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present *

The roll call shows 31 Members responded to the call
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we dispense with the reading of
the Journal of yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. RAMA: I move that we approve the Journal yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of
Business.
motion is approved

COMMUNICATIONS
Radiogram from the Association of Philippine Physicians in America, Inc.,
1830 Mirmar Road, Munster, Indiana 46321, proposing an amendment to
Section 7 of
Proposed Resolution No. 496 so as to enable a natural-born Filipino citizen
who lost his Philippine citizenship to acquire private lands.
Communication from the Philippine Union for Human Rights, 2215 Pedro Gil
St., Sta. Ana, Metro Manila, expressing its support for a draft proposal
prohibiting the extension of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement beyond its
expiry date in 1991.
Communication from the Board of Directors of the CEU Faculty and Allied
Workers Union, expressing its solid support for the social justice program
envisioned in the proposed Constitution and attaching thereto a copy of its
proposal to convert CEU into a cooperative, hoping that the honorable
Commissioners will find some pertinent and relevant information therein for
the solution of the funding problem of the educational system in the private
sector.
Communication from Mr. Roberto G. Plata of Grepalife and six hundred
ninety-nine other petitioners, seeking to include in the new Constitution a
provision
obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of
conception.
Principles.
Communication from Messrs. Emerito P. Nacpil and Emmanuel G. Cleto, both

of the United Method Church in the Philippines, proposing an amendment by
substitution to Section 10 of Proposed Resolution No. 531 (Committee Report
No. 31) on the separation and mutual autonomy of the Church and State.
Letter from Mr. Abraham Sarmiento for Nationalist Alliance for Justice,
Freedom and Democracy, urging the inclusion of provisions banning foreign
military
bases, and nuclear weapons and facilities from Philippine territory.
Letter from Mr. Miguel Resus of Diatagon, Lianga Surigao del Sur, suggesting,
among others, that Filipino citizens abroad be allowed to vote; that every
individual must be allowed to donate a portion of his tax obligation to
charitable, political, educational and sports purposes; and that dual
citizenship
may be allowed to Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship.
Communication from the Philippine Association for the Advancement of
Science, Inc. signed by Mr. Quintin I. Kintanar, expressing its full support to
Proposed Resolution No. 222, entitled: RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROVISIONS
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR INCLUSION IN THE PROPOSED NEW
CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Letter from Ms. Leticia L. de Leon of 7 Mother Ignacia Avenue, Quezon City,
advocating the teaching of religion in both public and private schools,
making
this compulsory for Catholics to be taught the Catholic faith, the Protestants,
the Protestant faith, and so forth.

Letter from Mr. Amando R. Ortiz of M. H. del Pilar Street, Tabaco, Albay,
suggesting, among others, that coconut lands should not be covered by land
reform
and that P.D. No. 27 be amended to give the heirs of landowners shares of
the property.
Communication from the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, First Quezon
City Chapter, Centroid Building, 395 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, signed by
Ms.
Vivian M. de los Reyes, transmitting a Resolution addressed to President
Corazon C. Aquino, requesting the adoption of a national policy requiring the
utilization of services of qualified Filipino professionals and experts in all
government projects which are funded by the Philippine government or by
foreign loans.
Letter from Ms. Melba P. Maggay of the Institute for Studies in Asian Church
and Culture, 4 Malinis Street, U.P. Village, Quezon City, endorsing the
proposal of Konfes, a group of evangelical Christians, for the retention of the
text of Section 8, Article XV of the 1973 Constitution regarding religious
instruction in public elementary and high schools.
Letter from Mr. Horacio V. Marasigan of the Concerned Citizens of San Juan,
Batangas, submitting his proposal regarding THE STRATEGY FOR
DISTRIBUTING THE
PATRIMONY OF THE NATION and RESOLUTION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF
LAND AND ITS FRUITS.

MR. RAMA: There is an important information from the Muslim world which
Commissioner Uka will announce. I ask that Commissioner Uka be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA: Madam President, honorable Members of the Constitutional
Commission:
I have been requested by our other Commissioners Honorable Alonto and
Abubakar, that I inform the honorable Members of the Commission that one
of the most
important Muslim holidays, Hariraya Hadj will be celebrated on Friday,
August 15, 1986 by the 7 million Muslims in the Philippines and about 1
billion
Muslims all over the world. As a matter of fact, about 2,000 of our brother
Muslims have left for the Holy City of Mecca. This is in celebration of the
founding of the monotheistic faith in that part of the world by Father
Abraham and his sacrifice of his son Ismael. And so, I just want to say that
this is
a very important occasion for us.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the Chairman and some of the members of the
Committee on Social Justice are not yet here. May I ask for a suspension of
the
session for five minutes?
It was 9:38 a.m.

Continuation
MR. RAMA: We are now in the period of amendments on the Article on Social
Justice. The Committee has suggested that we take up the last two sections
under
the title: Role and Rights of Peoples Organizations.
I so move.
motion is approved.
MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President.
Before going into that, I understand that Commissioner Garcia has a
proposed definition of peoples organization which needs to be incorporated
into the
proposed Section 19.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it Commissioner Garcia or Commissioner Monsod?
MR DAVIDE: Commissioners Garcia and Monsod; it was Commissioner
Monsod who requested a definition.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we call this later when Commissioner Monsod is
around?
How about the section on health? Last night, we suspended the discussion on
the Article on Social Justice with respect to health. Are we ready?
Commissioner Quesada is already here.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are still some statements or explanations
of Commissioner Quesada that are being mimeographed or xeroxed and she
would
want to defer this until these papers are distributed.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, if it is the understanding that we defer
consideration of the definition, my proposal will be only the following: In the
opening sentence of Section 19, I seek the deletion of the words the ends
of; it will just read: In the pursuit of Social Justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: It is accepted.
MR. DAVIDE: That is all that I seek to introduce. I am waiting for the definition
because I have some amendments on it.
MR. BENNAGEN: We were provided with a copy of the definition of peoples
organizations which is suggested to be Section 21. I am not sure whether
this is
shared by the Committee, but let me just say that personally, I am not in
favor of including a definition of peoples organizations in the same
manner
that we did not even include even as we wanted to a definition of social
justice. I do not see why it is more important to define peoples
organizations rather than social justice.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a few minutes.
It was 9:47 a.m.
MR. RAMA: The Committee is now ready to discuss amendments to the

provision under the section on health. So may I ask that Commissioner
Quesada be
recognized.
The honorable Commissioners have a copy of the amended version of the
section on health which would include some explanatory notes. It is
necessary to
explain some of the concepts so that when one makes an amendment it will
be in the light of the term of reference that has been used in this provision. I
would like to acknowledge the fact that this change in the formulation has
been influenced to a great extent by the amendment of Commissioner
Romulo. So,
Section 13 will now read: The State shall protect and promote the right to
HEALTH. To this end, it shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive
APPROACH TO
HEALTH DEVELOPMENT . . .
The new concept introduced here is the integrated and comprehensive
approach, and if it is an approach, it cannot just be to health care but to
health
development which would be more encompassing than just the provision of
health care. So to continue: . . . WHICH shall make essential goods, HEALTH
and
OTHER social services available to all citizens at affordable cost, with priority
for the needs of the UNDERPRIVILEGED, . . . has been substituted for the
word disadvantaged to be in keeping with the other terms used in the
other sections such as those in the Urban Land Reform and Housing where
instead of
the word disadvantaged the term underprivileged was used. Then . . .
the sick, women and children, aged and disabled.
The explanatory notes would explain the important concepts which are
something new in this Constitution, one of which is the right to health.
Everybody
agrees that this is the first time that this right would ever be written in the
Constitution. Health development is another concept that some might ask a
few questions on. This would refer to the overall improvement of the level of
health of the people to a higher level where people can live economically
productive and socially satisfying lives. Health development would not just
be dependent on the giving of health care, but also on the level of health
resources available in our environment such as water, toilets, anti-pollution
devices, and all other social services which are necessary to improve the
level of health of the people.
These main concepts would probably have to be explained because they
would serve as the bases for future legislation. This Member has been very
conscious
of the criticism leveled against non-lawyers that they are too verbose and
are working on legislation rather than on constitutional provisions, so I would
like just to use these terms. The integrated and comprehensive approach
here contains principles on the means to achieve peoples right to health
that
could be adopted by future legislation. Such an approach would require the
integration of many sectors to become involved in addressing the health
problems
of the people. It would mean improvements in food, housing, education, in
purchasing power and access to health services; higher allocation of
resources to
health; more active participation of the people in health efforts; a
reorientation of health development strategies and the political will to act on
policies and plans.
But more specifically on health, the concept of integration would imply the
following:
As I explained earlier when Commissioner Romulo introduced the concept of
integration and comprehensive health care, integration implies the need to
unify
the countrys health delivery system along the primary health care approach
which is a commitment of the Philippine government to the 134 nations that
signed the Alma Declaration in 1978, which sought to meet the goal of
health for all in the year 2000. The State has to work out a mechanism by
which the
different agencies or instrumentalities thereof would unify their efforts in
addressing or satisfying the health care needs of the country. These
instrumentalities would include the Ministry of Labor and Employment,
Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, Ministry of
National
Defense, the private sector or non-governmental organizations.
Those who wanted to introduce some concepts such as appropriate
technology and peoples participation and self-reliance would actually be
unified in this
primary health care approach because this would now include the concepts
of peoples participation and multi-sectoral linkages. Health interlinks with
agricultural, social development and national economic programs.
Integration is likewise envisioned as maximizing existing health resources,

both of the government and of the non-government or private sector in the
spirit of cooperation and collaboration. The State, however, is tasked to take
the initiative in strengthening intrasectoral efforts because it is very
hard to work without a mandate. There is the territoriality of one ministry
over the other, but one ministry works on its own. It never really works
holistically so that we can come out with a picture of health of the people.
So, whenever we talk of the state of the nations health, most likely it is
just a reflection of the statistics derived from one ministry. It does not report
the statistics of the health situation of our country covering other
sectors like those in education, labor, the private sector or even in the
Ministry of National Defense. The latter would have its own statistics how
many
people died in combat or in accidents; how many actually got sick or died
from other causes. This is another concept which we hope future legislation
will
work out. It is not the responsibility of the subcommittee to work out the
details because that would then bog us down into details which everybody is
wont
not to go into.
Integration also envisions the health care system to blend western medicine
with traditional and oriental health care modalities or approaches so that we
will not be purely dependent on the western model of health care.
Integration would also direct the health care system towards prevention
rather than cure;
health rather than illness; and being community-based rather than being
hospital-centered in the delivery of health care services.
In essence these clarifications could guide future legislators on the concept
of comprehensive and integrated approach to health development.
The main consideration in the concept of comprehensive approach is health
development. This would mean the following:
Health services would include health promotion with emphasis on health
education. Examples of health promotion are physical fitness, personal
hygiene, and
food and nutrition programs. We have disease prevention or specific
protection, such as immunizations to protect persons against specific
diseases and use
of protective wears or gears to protect from injuries or illness resulting from
dangerous substances in the work environment. It also includes early
diagnosis and treatment so that people will not discover that they have
cancer, heart diseases and other conditions late in the game, like when
Commissioner Guingona discovered that he has a problem with his gall
bladder. It is good that he is now undergoing treatment. Then there is

rehabilitation
of the disabled. So, these are the coverage of a truly comprehensive health
care. It does not just provide treatment but goes into promotion.
Then health development should also take into consideration the common
health problems of the country especially those affecting the majority of our
people, like communicable diseases. The number 1 killers of the country are
pneumonia and tuberculosis which can be prevented. Other problems are
gastroenteritis, malnutrition, drug abuse, poor environmental sanitation,
maternal and child health problems, and endemic diseases like malaria,
schistosomiasis and filariasis.
We are catching up with the so-called problems of more developed countries
which are the degenerative diseases like cancer, cardiovascular diseases and
mental illness. So these are the problems that health services should
address. That is why the approach should be comprehensive. Comprehensive
coverage
likewise addresses the problems of particular population. In the field of labor,
health services attend to the problems of workers who are exposed to
certain work conditions. In the school setting, health services address the
population problem.
So, I would like to stress that a truly comprehensive approach to health care
would require the educational component of health programs to enable
people
to be actively involved in organizing and mobilizing these programs. I would
like to emphasize that this program on drug abuse is one of those programs
that a comprehensive approach to health development would have to
address itself to.
The fourth concept which should be clarified also for the record and for
future legislation would be the phrase: make essential goods, health and
other
social services available to citizens at affordable cost. This phrase is to
highlight the fact that health as a human right cannot be enjoyed by the
people unless these goods and services are made available and affordable to
them, especially the underprivileged sectors of our society. In fact, I would
agree to the proposition that there should be free medical care to the
paupers, because this is one aspect of a truly just and humane health care
delivery
system that people need not die. If they cannot really afford medical care,
then the State provides for those who are classified as paupers. This should
make Commissioner Nolledo happy.
Then the fifth, the phrase the underprivileged, the sick, women and
children, aged and disabled singles out these groups as disadvantaged in
terms of
access to adequate health services and resources. This being the Article on
Social Justice has to single them out because they are denied the right to
health and the right to life.
So, these are basically the concepts and the rest would be self-explanatory.
The second section, Section 14, states: The State shall maintain an effective
food and drug monitoring system and UNDERTAKE appropriate health
manpower
development and research RESPONSIVE TO THE COUNTRYS HEALTH NEEDS
AND PROBLEMS. This section has been modified in the light of the proposal
of
Commissioner Ople, who introduced the term UNDERTAKE and also the
phrase RESPONSIVE TO THE COUNTRYS HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS.
I think that the succeeding explanatory notes would already enlighten the
Commissioner on what would be covered by this provision, so I need not go
into
the other details. Section 13 is the one I wanted to highlight because this is
where most of the proposals will coming from.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized.
Commissioner Quesada said that my proposed amendment is deemed
included in this provision. But I do not believe so because of the use of the
term
affordable cost, which does not exist in the vocabulary paupers. They
simply have no money to pay medicines or medical care.
I would like to insist on my amendment, with due respect to Commissioner
Quesada and with the kindest indulgence of the Members of this
Commission. I must
be very frank that I was hesitant in presenting this amendment. But my
conscience bothered me and dictated to me that I should pursue it before
this
Commission. Madam President, it is a truism that I slept with my conscience.
I would like to explain this before I propose the amendment. I would like to
submit it to the body for voting. This is a very emphatic provision that was
initially objected to by my friend, Sister Christine Tan, on the ground that it
will promote mendicancy but the question of whether it will promote
mendicancy is the matter of implementation. I think Congress can adopt
measures to see to it that this will not promote mendicancy.
I am insisting on this amendment, Madam President because just like Sister
Tan, my sister, Nelia (now Sis. Idmara, S.Sp.S.) is also a nun at the Holy
Spirit Convent, and with her, I really saw with my own eyes paupers dying
because they had no medicines.
Paupers go to government hospitals and are given prescriptions. However,
the doctor would tell them to buy the medicines they need. But they have no
money;
they just depend on the limited charity of other people while the government
has all the resources at its command.
The second objection to my proposal is based on the need for big funding. I
am a teacher of taxation in different schools, Madam President. Pardon me
for
saying that the procedure of tax collection in the Philippines is very
defective. An example is the residence tax. I know many people who are rich
and who
own landholdings yet they pay only P1. Likewise, when they file income tax
returns, they falsify the amounts paid as residence tax in said returns. I call
the attention of Commission Bienvenido Tan, who is the present
Commissioner of the BIR. The government can impose a one-peso additional
residence tax which
can be termed as Residence Tax E or D. The government can raise funds
through the sale of postage stamps as was done under the Anti-TB Stamp
Law. The
Anti-TB Stamp Law generates millions of pesos every year. Also, the
government can tap private resources and invite the help of socially
conscious
corporations, like the San Miguel Corporation, the Ayala Corporation and
others. It can also impose special levies. Likewise, the government has many
sources while we, private individuals who are willing to help the paupers,
have limited resources.
I remember Senator Diokno telling me: Pepe, please do something about
the poor. Your Constitution must not only be nationalistic and must not only
be
pro-people but must be pro-poor. While we talk, Madam President, of
fighting for the rights of people, we forget to talk of people fighting for their
lives because of poverty brought about by mal-administration, antipathy and
indifference on the part of the government. So I ask that the members of the
Committee and the Members of this Commission be magnanimous. In the
words of Jose Maria Escriva: Magnanimity connotes largeness of heart
wherein many can
find refuge. Let us not forget the anguish of the poor. For the information of
the body, Commissioner Tan has told me she will let her heart rule over her
head by voting for this amendment.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I really sympathize with Commissioner
Nolledo. As a matter of fact, it is a big struggle to actually put this in the
provision. That would have a lot of implications and we would like to prevent
the people being raised to a high level of aspiration only to be frustrated
because of the inability of the present health care system to provide free
medical care. That is why we settled for affordable or minimum cost. As a
matter
of fact, with the present administration, there are efforts to really address the
problem of the paupers. In the City of Manila, the Ministry of Health is
zeroing in on this particular problem.
So, we are preparing a Constitution that is not just going to be relevant for
this year or next but within this decade. We are preparing a Constitution
that will be for the next generations. We hope that people will already learn
how to be more conscious of health promotion and disease prevention. In
addition, we really do not want to promote mendicancy.
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think Commissioner Colayco has something to say.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may the Committee be given a chance to
reply so that there will be order. After the Committee gives its reply, then
perhaps
the proponent and others who may support him can also give their
comments.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, what I have to say I think will help the
Committee respond. I would like to give actual cases why this proposal of
Commissioner Nolledo can be considered an imperative. We have had
occasions, particularly my wife to bring poor people to the Philippine General
Hospital
in Manila, and the case is always that when medicines are needed, they are
told to buy these at the drug stores outside the hospital. Now, these drug
stores right in front of the Philippine General Hospital sell medicines at
exorbitant prices.
The poor people who go to the Philippine General Hospital need every help
that our government can extend. We know that the government allots a big
sum of
money for the purchase of medicines and drugs which are necessary. I do not
see why this allotment cannot cover the medicines which are called for in
most
cases being attended to in government hospitals. To my surprise, it has
always been the case that whatever the medicine may be, whatever, the
sickness may
be sometimes even simple fever people are referred to commercial
drug stores to buy their medicines.
I, therefore, support 100 percent the proposal of Commissioner Nolledo.
MS. QUESADA: Will Commissioner Nolledo please state his amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Since the word paupers has attained an established legal
meaning, the amendment will read as follows: THE STATE SHALL EXTEND
FREE MEDICAL
CARE TO PAUPERS. Paupers are those who have no source of livelihood or
their sources of income are just enough to make their body and soul
together. They
really have no money. We cannot talk of affordable cost with respect to
paupers. The State must exercise its parens patriae role, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that an additional sentence?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, an additional sentence to Section 13.
MR. DAVIDE: May I introduce an-amendment to the proposal of Commissioner
Nolledo. It will not be a new sentence but after the word cost, delete with
priority for the needs of the UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sick, women and
children, aged and disabled and in lieu thereof insert AND WHENEVER
NECESSARY, FOR FREE
ESPECIALLY TO THE UNDERPRIVILEGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED, so it will
read: affordable cost, AND WHENEVER NECESSARY, FOR FREE ESPECIALLY
TO THE
UNDERPRIVILEGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, it seems to me that Commissioner Davides
amendment will also destroy the essence of the Committee amendments. It
will expand
the scope. I am talking only of paupers those who have no sources of

livelihood. The term underprivileged may cover those who are
underemployed who may
be able to afford medicines. I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo does not accept the proposed
BISHOP BACANI: May I propose a change in the wording of the clause which
might not render necessary anymore the addition of a new sentence. It will
read as
follows: . . . IT SHALL ADOPT an integrated and comprehensive APPROACH
TO health DEVELOPMENT which shall PUT essential goods, HEALTH and
OTHER social
services WITHIN THE REACH OF all THE citizens . . . Then we continue on
with the others.
THE PRESIDENT: We still have to dispose of Commissioner Nolledos
amendment first.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, if the Committee will accept that
amendment and with the understanding that the phrase WITHIN THE
REACH would mean that
should the paupers not be able to afford, they would be given free medical
care by the government, then I will yield to the amendment of Commissioner
Bacani.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may the Committee be given a chance to
articulate its thoughts?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon will state the reaction of the
Committee.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we do not want a welfare state. We do not
want to constitutionalize mendicancy. We do not want to raise the hopes of
the
people only to be let down because we will all be blamed for it.
As matters stand now, no matter how much the State would wish to give free
medical services to all the paupers and to all the poor, it is unable to do so.
But if it could, it would.
Commissioner Quesada has done a wonderful job with respect to this section
on health: I do not really think that anybody here has really done all the
details and the work, with all the order that he has, the way that
Commissioner Quesada has done her job. It is very clear in the explanatory
note on page
3, that there should be medical care to the paupers.
So, that is the sense and the objective of the Committee. However, we
cannot put it in black and white in the Constitution, otherwise it becomes an
absolute mandate. And if the State would be unable to give a medical care
for millions of reasons, for which it shall not be blamed, the people will be
disappointed frustrated, and this might complicate matters.
So, suppose the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bacani becomes
unattainable, what happen? After all, the term affordable cost does
necessarily have to
mean cash. It could mean that these people could pay with their services.
We have a lot self-help programs. So, if these paupers cannot afford pay
cash,
perhaps their relatives can render services to various health clinics.
These are details which could be left to the Ministry of Health or to the
government to implement. But us to specifically state in the Constitution that
everything is going to be free is very dangerous. Anyway, the intent of this
Commission and that of the Committee, as articulated in the explanatory
note,
is as much as possible to give free medical services, particularly to the
paupers.
MS. QUESADA: Because of my sympathy to particular cause, would
Commissioner Nolledo be amenable to introducing the term PAUPERS after
the needs of the so
that it reads with priority for the needs of the PAUPERS, the
UNDERPRIVILEGED the sick, women and children, aged and disabled, with
the understanding
that the health care system shall provide free medical care services for these
paupers who cannot afford such services that will entitle them to right to
health and the right to life.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I am deeply grateful to Commissioner
Quesada, but because of existence of the term affordable cost, I think
there will
really be complications.
I recommend that we adopt the suggestion of Commissioner Bernas, Madam

President. We are not creating a welfare state here, that is why we are
concentrating the privilege only to paupers. Instead of saying THE STATE
SHALL EXTEND, we will put THE STATE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO EXTEND FREE
MEDICAL CARE
TO PAUPERS.
The word ENDEAVOR as suggested by Commissioner Bernas will water
down a little bit the provision in the sense that the State shall try its best
extend
free medical care to paupers.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I think we would like this to be thrown to
the body for a vote. The Committee would not be united in its stand.
MR. NOLLEDO: I will submit to the body.
MS. QUESADA: I personally accept but I cannot speak for the entire
Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Commissioner very much for her sympathy.
MR. RAMA: I move that we vote on the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote first on Commissioner Nolledos proposed
amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to include my friend, Reverend Father Bernas, as a
co-author because the word ENDEAVOR changed the meaning
substantially.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the Commissioners proposed amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: It reads: THE STATE SHALL EN- DEAVOR TO EXTEND FREE
MEDICAL CARE TO PAUPERS. I think that is reasonable enough.
MS. QUESADA: The Commissioner has convinced the Committee. I think the
Committee accepts that reformulation.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Commissioner very much and may God bless her.
MR. BENGZON: Before anything else, Madam President, I move that this
position paper prepared by Commissioner Quesada be integrated into the
record in toto.
*
motion of Commissioner Bengzon is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Rosario Braid seeks recognition.
I ask that she be recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I find Commissioner Quesadas paper
enlightening and comprehensive but I would like to put also on record that an
earlier conversation between Minister Pardo Tavera and Minister Bengzon,
both have indicated one problem that, although implied here, has not been
stressed; that is, the services are available but the people are indifferent and
passive in the acceptance of these services. As noted, in the immunization
program although immunization is available, one out of two acceptors does
not continue the immunization program. Both Ministers have indicated that a
refocusing of the program would put emphasis on education and attitudinal
transformation. That is why they have expressed concern with the mass
media and
all types information that would effect the transformation attitudes and
passivity. This is one.
The other concern is that in this decade where voluntarism is the model and
where there is an attempt to really move towards the self-reliant use of
backyard farming, backyard gardening, indigenous health and indigenous
medicines, I would like to highlight the need for indigenous health resources
and
self-reliance. While we accept that for many years there will be focus on
delivery of services, we would also like to highlight the equal importance of
developing self-reliance because the indigenous and local resources are
there.
The third point has to do with Section 14 which is the need for an even
distribution or regional distribution of health personnel. As statistics would
show
and I am sure that Commissioner Quesada would bear me out, there are
adequate rural health workers totaling more than 92,000 and there is a total
national
ratio of 1:70 the population, but there is uneven regional distribution of

health workers.
MR. BENGZON: May we, therefore, have the Commissioners proposed
amendment.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes. The proposed amendment to Section 13 would
retain everything that Commissioner Quesada has submitted, except that I
have pruned it
down to 40 words which says: The State shall promote the right to HEALTH
AND SHALL ADOPT A comprehensive APPROACH to health DEVELOPMENT,
make essential
social services available to all citizens PARTICULARLY the UNDERPRIVILEGED,
at affordable cost AND ENCOURAGE SELF- RELIANCE THROUGH USE OF
INDIGENOUS
HEALTH RESOURCES. This is for Section 13.
MS. QUESADA: Can we respond for every section and for every proposed
amendment?
We would like to assure Commissioner Rosario Braid that the concept of selfreliance and the use of indigenous health resources are already integrated in
term comprehensive and integrated approach. We just did not want to
single out all these components of such an integrated and comprehensive
approach to
health development. Otherwise, we will miss out some of the important
principles undergirding this approach.
So, self-reliance is an objective where a primary health care program
addresses itself to make people take care of their own health or the country
to
become self- reliant. Actually, it is encompassed in the explanatory note as is
the meaning of integrated and comprehensive approach.
But using also the philosophy of the Committee in underscoring important
concepts, I thought we could adopt this and use the word underprivileged
to mean
the sick, women and children, aged and disabled, so that instead of
mentioning all the beneficiaries, we would only use the word
UNDERPRIVILEGED. I would
like to emphasize SELF-RELIANCE rather than mere delivery of social
services.
And so, I would appeal to the Commissioner to include the concept of selfreliance because as we know, we are very rich in resources such as herbal
medicines. I think there is a comprehensive documentation of herbal
medicines and local indigenous foods and I would like to emphasize their
utilization.
So, if the Committee would not accept, I would like to throw this to the body.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for two minutes to afford
Commissioner Rosario Braid time to confer with the members of the
Committee on the
word SELF-RELIANCE.
It was 10:32 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT: The session was resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized to restate her
proposed amendment. Is it an entire substitution or just an insertion of
certain
words?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It will just be insertion, Madam President. I think I will
go along and use all the phrases of Commissioner Quesada but eliminate
the
sick, women and children, aged and disabled as this would belong to the
underprivileged, and then add the phrase AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELIANCE
THROUGH USE
OF INDIGENOUS HEALTH RESOURCES.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall this be inserted, after the word disabled?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: After the word UNDERPRIVILEGED, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner proposes eliminate the rest?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Madam Presidents but to insert instead the phrase
AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELIANCE THROUGH USE OF INDIGENOUS HEALTH
RESOURCES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask that if we should vote on this, we should vote first
on the deletion of the words that the Commissioner proposes to delete.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to the Committee that we vote first on
the proposed deletion of the words the sick, women and children and
disabled on
Section 13?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, we will vote first on that motion to delete before we can
insert the proposed amendment.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I just like to clarify the enumeration.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please proceed.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to clarify why I enumerated the underprivileged
the sick, women and children, aged and disabled. These are the groups we
consider as the special groups with special health problems that have to be
addressed to by the health care system the sick, particularly because if
they
are not addressed to, then they die; the women and children because of the
nature of women, especially their maternal functions, their needs; and the
children will have to be addressed too. The aged and the disabled are just as
much disadvantaged because we do not have the special services and
attention
given to these special groups. In the health system, we already recognized
these groups as those that would have special needs and singled them out to
provide the basis for future legislations.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I have no objection about mentioning all these
beneficiaries, but in the spirit of brevity and in order that it could
accommodate the
phrase PROMOTE SELF-RELIANCE THROUGH INDIGENOUS RESOURCES, I

thought the phrase could be deleted.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, it is not just a matter of giving in and
accepting one concept or another. As I explained earlier, I took a lot of time
explaining the intention of this provision so that we will not single out some
of the concepts that are already inherent in such an approach, otherwise we
will miss out some of the other components, like when we talk of selfreliance and indigenous. These are parts of the comprehensive approach
to the
health development that we are addressing ourselves to.
MR. BENGZON: Can we vote now, Madam President?
MR. PADILLA: May I make a suggestion that the last two lines of Section 13
be simplified to read: the needs of the UNDERPRIVILEGED SICK and
eliminate all
the rest and then add the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rosario
Braid. In other words, we just say the UNDERPRIVILEGED SICK, instead of
the
UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sick, women and children . . .
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I would like to respond to the suggestion or
the proposal of Commissioner Padilla to use just the term underprivileged.
The
reason why we put a comma (,) is that we did not want to give the
impression that we are just interested in the people who are sick. Health care
is also
provided those people who are well, and we would like to provide a
comprehensive health program that will address itself to the healthy
population so that
they will not get sick. By saying the underprivileged sick, we are really
referring only to the sick. So, we placed a comma (,) because we talk then
about the people who need special protection, special health promotion
the preventive aspects of the health care program.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that this has been sufficiently discussed.
Those who are in favor of deleting the phrase the sick, women and children,
aged and disabled from Section 13, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their hand.)
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The next amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid is to add after the word
UNDERPRIVILEGED the phrase AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELIANCE
THROUGH THE USE OF
INDIGENOUS HEALTH RESOURCES. This has not been accepted by the
Committee as explained by Commissioner Quesada.
Those in favor of the second amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid,
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide, is this still on the same Section 13?
MR. DAVIDE: The same section, Madam President.
MR DAVIDE: On the first line, insert after HEALTH the words OF ALL THE
PEOPLE, and then delete the words right to, so that the first line will read:
The State shall protect and promote the health OF ALL THE PEOPLE.
MS. QUESADA: We find that the word right should be expressly stated in
this particular provision.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have read the report of the Committee on
Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of Principles. The same
sentence
relating to health is found in the Declaration of Principles. So, to be
consistent with the Declaration of Principles, I think the matter of the right to
health is already included when we say that the State shall protect and
promote the health of all the people. It is conceded that that is a right, but it
will emphasize the fact that this obligation is to all the people.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. But still we would like to retain the word right because
this has a special meaning now to the direction of the provision of health
care. We would like this expressed because there are many violations of this
human right. One might be a patient one day and discover that providers of
services do not recognize his right to health care and may not provide him
the tender loving care that he deserves because they do not understand fully
and
appreciate that this is already a right that has been enshrined in the
Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I will agree to the non-deletion of right to
but I reserve my right to amend the corresponding provision in the Article on
Declaration of Principles and State Policies.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, we would welcome that.
MR. DAVIDE: But I insist on the inclusion after the word HEALTH of the
phrase OF ALL THE PEOPLE.
MS. QUESADA: We accept.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is the decision of Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment is only to add after HEALTH the words OF ALL
THE PEOPLE.
MS. QUESADA: On second thought, Madam President, would that not
contribute to more verbiage because there is already a mention here of
making all the
services available to all citizens?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I will have a subsequent proposal to that
later. The idea here is, if we only say right to health, whose right is it?
MS. QUESADA: Is it not understood that when we talk about the right to
health, we refer to the right of all citizens?
MR. DAVIDE: I suggested OF ALL THE PEOPLE because in the succeeding
sentence, only to all citizens is mentioned.
MR. BENGZON: Primarily, to every citizen here in this country, to the Filipinos
and, of course, to everybody, regardless of race, creed or whatever. That
is already understood.
MR. DAVIDE: The point is, in the first sentence, it is silent; but in the second
sentence it is to all citizens. So, this would classify certain persons
in the country. The second sentence relates only to all citizens.
MS. QUESADA: Would the Commissioner want to amend the second sentence
where the use of all citizens could be changed to ALL THE PEOPLE?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly.
MS. QUESADA: We accept.
MR. DAVIDE: So, I will not insist on the amendment on the first line but
instead on placing the words PEOPLE in lieu of citizens on the third from
the
last line.
MS. QUESADA: We accept, Madam President
Commissioner Davide which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears
MR. DAVIDE: On the same line where the substitution is made, I seek for the
deletion of the words with priority for the needs of, and in lieu thereof, we
say ESPECIALLY TO.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this acceptable?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President, we accept.
amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I suggest a very simple amendment on line

3 after the word shall, and this is to place a comma (,) after shall and
insert
BY LAW then a comma (,). The amendment now reads: shall BY LAW, make
essential goods . . .
MS. QUESADA: I understand that there is a proposal that would probably
respond to this particular concern of inserting the words BY LAW by
Commissioner
Ople. I think the proposal is really to prevent the possibility of raising hopes.
Would the Commissioner be amenable to the proposition of Commissioner
Ople?
MR. RODRIGO: I want to hear it.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, would Commissioner Rodrigo at this point
consider accepting an amendment to his amendment so that instead of BY
LAW the word
ENDEAVOR TO is substituted for it. This is actually indicated in a proposed
amendment that I had submitted earlier to the Committee, and the reason
for
saying ENDEAVOR TO is precisely to put the expectations and hopes of the
people who will read this provision at a more realizable level and which also
means we eliminate the expectation that the government will provide all of
these goods and services. The health development program will endeavor to
make
all of these goods and services available at affordable cost. With that change
it becomes imminently implementable at once, without having to project to a
long-run future when one has to wait for vast resources to be available to
finance a national health insurance program of the kind which England, for
example, is now reconsidering because of the unaffordable costs.
MR. RODRIGO: The meaning of BY LAW is not exactly the same as the
meaning of the words ENDEAVOR TO, but between provincemates, 1 yield
to Commissioner
Ople.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, we accept the proposed amendment to
insert ENDEAVOR TO after SHALL on the third line.
amendment is
approved.
MR. OPLE: I have just one more amendment, Madam President.

MR. OPLE: On the same section, I suggest that we end the sentence at
affordable cost which is on the third line from the bottom of the official
text, and
then follow it up with: THERE SHALL BE PRIORITY FOR THE NEEDS OF THE
UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sick, women and children, THE aged and THE
disabled. The reason
for suggesting this is that the priority for the needs of the underprivileged
ought not to be read in the context alone of essential goods and services,
but this should be a priority of the entire integrated and comprehensive
approach. I think that makes the meaning clear, there shall be special
programs in
the future to implement this priority for the needs of the underprivileged, the
sick, women and children and, may I say, let us use the standard term THE
aged and THE disabled, instead of merely aged and disabled.
When we cut that sentence and establish a new priority for the needs of the
underprivileged, it is a mandate of Congress to devise a special program
under
an integrated and comprehensive health care system for these
underprivileged classes.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, we have just approved the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Davide cutting down on the words with
priority for. But this
means a restyling. Would the honorable Commissioner be amenable to giving
this to the Committee on Style to decide on whether it should be a separate
sentence?
MR. OPLE: This is not solely a question of style because with this we are
limiting the priority for the underprivileged when we cut the sentence and
reserve wholly a new sentence for the underprivileged. Then we are, as I said
earlier, making their priority coextensive not only with goods and services
but with the entire range of the integrated and comprehensive health care.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the proposal of Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: As I said, end the sentence with the words affordable cost, then
add this new sentence instead: THERE SHALL BE PRIORITY FOR THE NEEDS
OF THE
UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sic women and children, THE aged and THE
disabled.
MS. QUESADA: The Committee accepts.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the latest amendment which has
been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I should like to present an amendment. There is
a health program which I believe, is very important and might be
emphasized in
Section 13, and this is on preventive medicine. It is important because it
could save the country millions or hundreds of millions of pesos; it could save
millions of lives from sickness and death. I think it should be emphasized,
although it is contained in the explanation that, as Commissioner Quesada
has
stated, many of the people who will read the Constitution would not have the
time to research and find out the explanation of these provisions.
May I just mention one example, Madam President. I have a friend who is one
of the top doctors of the Lung Center of Imelda Marcos, and I asked him,
How
much money was spent to build this Lung Center? And he said, A hundred
and fifty million pesos. And I said Is that money well-spent to cure lung
diseases? He said, It is foolish money because instead of building hospital
or stressing on cure, this money should have gone into inoculations of
millions of Filipino infants and saving the lives of these infants through the
simple process of inoculating them with BCG I think Commissioner
Quesada
knows about this. According to the statistics, the no. 3 killer in the country is
tuberculosis. In other countries, tuberculosis has been wiped out because
of inoculation. Were the P150 million, which was spent for curative program,
spent for preventive medicine, we could have saved untold sufferings, many
lives and millions of pesos for the government.
Madam President, another point more important than the phrase affordable
to the people is whether the program is affordable to the government. In
other
words, the question is whether the government has the money to be able to
render the services and thereby save millions or hundreds of millions of
pesos by
emphasizing preventive medicine. So, I wonder if it would be good to stress
this by inserting the words STRESSING ON PREVENTIVE MEDICINE after the
phrase
essential goods, HEALTH and OTHER social services.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I really appreciate the interest of

Commissioner Rama on the preventive aspect of health care. As a matter of
fact, I am a
proponent of preventive health care. But as I said earlier, and as I explained
to Commissioner Rosario Braid, if we single out this element of a
comprehensive approach to health development, it might bog us down in the
details of what could very well be part of the thrust not even of legislation,
but of health programs. But I think it is very useful that we put on record that
the services should provide or should stress on health promotion, which I
included as part of the explanatory note of comprehensive approach. Section
13 (4) states that health services provided should include health promotion
(with emphasis on health education), disease prevention or specific
protection, such as immunization. We did not single out TB because that is
only one of
the causes of mortality and morbidity.
MR. RAMA: And so, it is the sense of the Committee that there must be
special emphasis on preventive medicine.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, we would like to put on record that the future health
delivery system should respond to the mandate for more prevention rather
than for
cure.
MR. RAMA: Yes, I think that is a good suggestion, so I will withdraw the
amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Perhaps the first amendment which I want to suggest may
not have to be done at all, if I am clarified on certain points.
When we speak of a comprehensive APPROACH TO health DEVELOPMENT
WHICH shall make essential goods, HEALTH and OTHER social services
available, does the
word HEALTH qualify the word services?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Would the Commissioner not deem it advisable to say
instead HEALTH SERVICES and OTHER social services available?
MS. QUESADA: The understanding is that health is part of the social services.
There will be the social service of education, housing, employment, security.
So, we just singled out HEALTH because we cannot have the state of health
unless we provide health services, but which is not alone responsible for man
or
people attaining a state of health.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but what I mean is, the interest of clarity might make it
necessary that we say instead HEALTH SERVICES and OTHER social vices
available. I have read this part twice, three times, and it was only later on
that I realized the need to make this clear. So, may I suggest that we add
the word SERVICES after HEALTH.
MS. QUESADA: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I submit amendment which the
Committee has accepted.
MR. SUAREZ: Where are we going to insert the amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: Insert the word SERVICE between the words HEALTH and
and OTHER which appear on the fourth line.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the phrase will now read health SERVICES
and OTHER social services available.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: So, the Committee has accepted, Madam President.
Commissioner Bacani which been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
MR. PADILLA: On that same line 4, I was thinking to change the words
goods, health services and other social services to ESSENTIAL MEDICINES,
HEALTH
DRUGS AND HOSPITAL SERVICES. Just a suggestion because when I read

goods, I had the impression that it includes not only vegetables, fish, meat;
these
are all goods, but I think what we should make available are medicines and
health drugs.
The term and OTHER social services is also very vague. What we need are
hospital services because when a person is seriously ill and he cannot be an
outpatient, he has to have some hospital bed and hospital care.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. This particular statement of goods does not just refer to
health goods, like medicines or the things that we find in the hospitals. This
relates now to the understanding that the state of health cannot be achieved
if there are other goods which are not made available and affordable. That is
why the comprehensive and integrated nature of this approach to health
development takes cognizance of the need to interrelate with other social
services.
Thus, we did not single out just food or drugs but it would mean also the
other essential goods which man needs so that he can attain good health.
MR. PADILLA: Yes. But when one is not healthy when he has a headache,
heartache, other aches what he needs is medicine. Of course, to have
good
physical and mental health, one needs more than medicine, like good food
and substantial proteins. But with regard to health care, it is the people who
go
to the hospital or to a doctor, but the common complaint is that the
medicines they prescribe are very costly. The immediate need of the patient
is to be
able to buy the medicines or the health drugs and, perhaps, a hospital
accommodation.
However, I will not insist if the Committee does not look with favor on this
suggestion.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, health care is really much broader than just
the state of illness. For example, when we talk about essential goods, it
would
refer to goods such as the building of bridges so that people will not get sick
of schistosomiasis; it will be providing the other conditions that will
enable people to maintain health. So, that is why it is the total health
development, including prevention, the putting up of toilets, of water
facilities,
mosquito nets, and all those that would prevent diseases. It is really going
into the details of health development.
I suppose that with this understanding of the holism, the broadness of this
concept of health, we realize that it is not just being sick or utilizing goods
offered in a hospital, but also the goods which are offered in the communities
that are considered.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, if Commissioner Padilla is no longer
insisting, may I pursue a second amendment?
BISHOP BACANI. I do not know whether this is a matter of style, but there is
some reason for the change I wish to propose. After saying There shall be
priority for the needs of the underprivileged, the sick, women and children,
the aged and the disabled, may I suggest that the order should be There
shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged, the sick, THE AGED
AND THE DISABLED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN. May I explain the reason. All
of the
previous ones, except the last two, necessarily suffer from some
disadvantage or infirmity; while the women and children, though they may
have special
needs, do not necessarily suffer from any infirmity or disadvantage.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President, we accept.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask Commissioner Bacani to read his amendment
again.
BISHOP BACANI: There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged,
the sick, THE AGED AND THE DISABLED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we eliminate women and children?
BISHOP BACANI: We put them at the last, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed, Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: I have a special predilection for women but it is precisely
because of this that I find a jarring note in this enumeration. Why should we
place women, in general, in the same class with the sick, the aged, the
disabled, the underprivileged? Do women, in general, include the women
who are
healthy, wealthy and wise?
I thought I could remedy this in the Committee on Style but I do not think I
can because it is not just a matter of form. In the case of men, only the men
who are sick come under this only those who are disabled and
underprivileged. But then we have placed women, in general, in the same
class with the sick,
the aged and the disabled.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, it may sound jarring and a bit inelegant but
apparently women have the exclusive monopoly of maternal functions and
for that
reason, they need special health care services and attention.
MR. RODRIGO: If the women do not see anything jarring in it, I do not mean
to be more popish than the Pope.
MR. MONSOD: I was just wondering if we can read this in connection with the
Section on Women because I guess we are applying ourselves to working
conditions and to working women. Is it possible to integrate this?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Quesada say?
MS. QUESADA: The Section on Women refers to working women, but we are
referring to women all over including those who may not be working in
industries but
whose health care needs have to be addressed to because of their biological
reproductive maternal functions.
MR. SARMIENTO: This is just a clarification addressed to Commissioner
Quesada.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it also about women?
MR. SARMIENTO: The use of the word women is very broad. It would cover
working women, women who are rich, who are wealthy, who are poor. Since
we have
the suggestion from Commissioner Monsod to link this with the provision on
working women, can we say WORKING women and children?
MS. QUESADA: No. We are also referring to women who stay at home, those
who are the child bearers, or the women who are not found in industry.
MR. SARMIENTO: So the intent in using the word women is to cover all
women?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more proponents of amendments
to Section 13.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we have just one minute to try to
reconcile the different ideas that have been propounded?
It was 11:15 a.m.
Before we suspended the session, we were discussing the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Bacani to transpose women and children. Am
I correct? Was the
amendment to place women and children at the end of the sentence after
disabled accepted by the Committee?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President.
Is there any other pending amendment?

MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we read our proposed last sentence
per the Ople amendment: There shall be priority for the needs of the
underprivileged
sick, the ELDERLY AND DISABLED, AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN. In other
words, we are now defining sick women and children, elderly and disabled
who are entitled
to special or priority attention because of the word underprivileged.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more proponents of any
amendment to Section 13, so I that we take a vote on the whole section.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Quesada please read now the whole
Section 13 as amended.
MS. QUESADA: The State shall protect and promote the right to HEALTH. To
this end, IT SHALL ADOPT an integrated and comprehensive APPROACH to
health
DEVELOPMENT WHICH shall endeavor to make essential goods, HEALTH
services and OTHER social services available to all THE PEOPLE at a
affordable cost. There
shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged sick, the ELDERLY AND
DISABLED, AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THE STATE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO
PROVIDE FREE
MEDICAL CARE TO THE PAUPERS.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may I just ask one question?
MR. FOZ: Would it not be better if we put the term women and children
ahead of all the others?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a suggestion that we put women and children
ahead. Is this acceptable to the Committee?
MS. QUESADA: No, Madam President, we will retain the Bacani proposal
which places women and children at the end of the enumeration.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those who are in favor of Section 13 as read by the

Chairman of the Committee, please raise their hand. (All Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 38 votes in favor and none against; Section 13, as
amended, is approved.
to present an amendment to Section 14.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, this is a very simple amendment. I suggest to
insert the words AND CONTROL between the words monitoring and
system.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we are consolidating Sections 14 and 15;
perhaps, if we state our consolidation, then the Gentleman can introduce his
amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: I am willing to defer consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us hear from the Committee.
MS. QUESADA: The reformulation would be as follows: THE STATE SHALL
MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE FOOD AND DRUG MONITORING SYSTEM,
APPROPRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER
DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH, AND A SPECIAL BODY FOR DISABLED
PERSONS TO ENABLE THEIR INTEGRATION TO THE MAINSTREAM OF
SOCIETY. So we have combined Sections
14 and 15.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that clear to the Commissioners?
MR. DAVIDE: May we have copies of the reformulation?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Quesada please repeat slowly.
MS. QUESADA: It still retains most of Section 14:
THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE FOOD AND DRUG MONITORING
SYSTEM, APPROPRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH,
AND A SPECIAL BODY FOR
DISABLED PERSONS TO ENABLE THEIR INTEGRATION TO THE MAINSTREAM

OF SOCIETY.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I know the purpose of lumping together the
provision on a special body for disabled persons and the provision on a food
and drug
monitoring system for which reason we deleted the important words for the
rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance of the disabled towards
their
total integration to the mainstream of society? I find that if we lump
together this provision on disabled persons with the provision on food and
drug
monitoring system, we dilute the special emphasis on the concern of the
State for disabled persons and, therefore, while I would not mind lumping the
two
sections together, I would request that the provision on disabled persons be
considered another paragraph.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we request a suspension of the session.
It was 11:34 a.m.
Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Due to the strong reactions to the new formulations, the
Committee has decided to retain the original sections. Section 14, however,
will
contain some insertions of new ideas, and this would now read: SECTION
14. The State shall maintain an effective food and drug monitoring AND
CONTROL
system and UNDERTAKE appropriate health manpower development and
research RESPONSIVE TO THE COUNTRYS HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS.
This idea was introduced by Commissioners Regalado and Davide.

MR. DAVIDE: So, the first amendment, the insertion of the words AND
CONTROL after monitoring, is accepted by the Committee.
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular amendment?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will the proponent entertain an amendment to
his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: May we hear the amendment?
MR. OPLE: In lieu of AND CONTROL, would Commissioner Davide consider
REGULATORY?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Madam President; CONTROL is much better because it will
relate precisely to drug. So, it is not just regulation of drug but control also of
drug.
MR. OPLE: I was hoping to put this in the following context. For example,
regulation would also include a mandate to appropriate government
authorities to
consider, for example, the point raised earlier by Commissioner Rosario Braid
about the use of indigenous resources, say, the preference for generic drugs
instead of these very costly foreign labels; and if we have to meet the
standard of affordable cost, it may be necessary for the regulatory function
of the
government to take vigorous steps to overcome the resistance of the foreign
drug companies to the use of generic drugs which probably cuts down the
cost
immediately by one-half, if not more. And so, regulation, monitoring and
regulatory system can actually have this context, instead of the more limited
one
of controlling abuses, including mislabeling, I suppose.
MR. DAVIDE: Can we combine the two concepts by inserting a comma (,)
after monitoring, then add the words REGULATION OR CONTROL?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I comment on regulation and
control?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed, Commissioner Sarmiento.

MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, if we look at the Explanatory Note
prepared by Commissioner Quesada, the use of the words monitoring
system would cover
control and regulation The sentence would read: SUCH MONITORING
SYSTEM WOULD ADDRESS ITSELF TO THE ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL
ESSENTIAL DRUG LIST, THE USE OF
GENERIC NAMES, THE STRENGTHENING OF THE NATIONAL FOOD AND DRUG
REGULATORY MECHANISMS . . . So I think the words regulation and
control are
contemplated by the use of the words food and drug monitoring system.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may I react?
MR. DAVIDE: This is merely an explanation but it is not embodied in the text
of the proposal. Interpretations may be made later to instances merely of
monitoring but monitoring does not necessarily include regulation or control.
So, the language must be stronger to include regulation or control,
especially that we are talking, among others, of food, and especially drugs. I
really feel the necessity not only of the insertion of CONTROL but also of
including REGULATION as explained by Commissioner Ople which a willing
to accept.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I am willing to accept the Davide amendment to
my amendment provided it is also understood that REGULATION and
CONTROL
include the power of the government to regulate cartelized pricing of drugs
especially by foreign manufacturers.
MR. DAVIDE: That would be included.
MR. OPLE: I understand they often resort to this, which will make it
impossible for the promise made in this section of the Article on Social
Justice to
make available goods and services at affordable cost. If the foreign drug
manufacturers which dominate the drug industry in the Philippines are
allowed to
resort to cartelized pricing, that is to say fixing the prices at levels behind
the back of the government. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the inclusion of the words
CONTROL AND REGULATION?
MS. QUESADA: I understand, Madam President, that the word CONTROL

would now include the ideas of regulation as proposed by Commissioner
Ople, so we will
just use the word CONTROL to include regulatory mechanisms.
MR. DAVIDE: It will necessarily include regulation.
MR. OPLE: Regulation will necessarily include control, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Ople insist on his proposal to include
the word REGULATION aside from CONTROL?
MR. OPLE: The Davide amendment contemplated the use of REGULATION
and CONTROL, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say? The Committee only says
monitoring AND CONTROL.
MS. QUESADA: Before we make a comment on that, Commissioner Villacorta
would like to clarify some possible consequence of this control.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, while we understand the contemplation
of this phrase, food and drug monitoring AND CONTROL, we would like to
put on
record that this does not at all refer to the control of food distribution, intake
or production.
MR. DAVIDE: That is also correct. Control here is to determine whether this
food is nutritious enough or adequate or substandard. So, the government
must
control not the manufacturing, although there should be some regulations in
the manufacturing to see to it that it will contribute to the promotion of
health.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, it seems that the intent of the Committee is
better served by the more precise term REGULATION which is usually the
object of
monitoring. Monitoring is usually exercised on behalf of a regulatory power of
a competent authority of the government; control can be susceptible to
misinterpretation; while regulation is completely immune from being
misinterpreted .

MR. SUAREZ: Just one point of clarification from the Honorable Davide
because the use of the word food may be misinterpreted in the future. Is
the
Gentleman referring to processed food?
MR. DAVIDE: Among others.
MR. SUAREZ: Not the raw food that we take like vegetables?
MR. DAVIDE: The government may also impose certain rules and regulations
to see to it that these vegetables would not be unhealthful because in
vegetable-growing, chemicals which may be disastrous to health are already
applied.
MR. SUAREZ: So, even in situations like that, the Gentleman contemplates
that the government could exercise monitoring and control?
MR. DAVIDE: Certainly, Madam President, because the idea is the promotion
of total health.
MR. SUAREZ: I thought the Gentleman was principally referring to processed
food?
MR. DAVIDE: No.
MR. OPLE: I support the wider interpretation given by Commissioner Davide.
He is correct. Does the Gentleman know that although American bases
authorities
are obligated by agreement or treaty to buy locally sourced vegetables
especially from Baguio, almost inevitably our vegetables are rejected at the
gate of
Clark Field and Subic because of the allegation that the DDT content is too
high for their own health standards?
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, we would like to propose this compromise
so we can cut down on the words and still achieve the same meanings that
both
Commissioners Davide and Ople have presented, and that is to use the word
REGULATORY. The State shall maintain an effective food and drug
REGULATORY
system, to include the idea of monitoring, control and regulation.
MR. DAVIDE: So, monitoring will be deleted?
MR. OPLE: That is acceptable to me, Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE: It is accepted.
MR. OPLE: I have another amendment, if Commissioner Davide has already
used his turn.
MR. DAVIDE: I have an amendment on the third line. My proposal is to delete
the word COUNTRYS and after PROBLEMS, insert the following: OF THE
PEOPLE
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY.
THE PRESIDENT: How will it read then?
MR. DAVIDE: It reads as follows: RESPONSIVE TO THE HEALTH NEEDS AND
PROBLEMS OF THE PEOPLE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY.
MR. MONSOD: The idea of the Committee here is not to bring in the
development of the country, only health needs and problems. That belongs
to the section
on the national economy.
MR. DAVIDE: Not only that, Madam President. In the proposed Article on
Declaration of Principles, the principal thrust of the development and
promotion of
the health of the people is for socioeconomic development. So, this is only to
dovetail that particular proposal.
MR. MONSOD: No, we do not have to repeat in each and every section social,
political, economic and health development and everything else because the
whole
Constitution must be read in that context.
MR. DAVIDE: Then I will not insist on that particular proposal.
MR. OPLE: May I propose an amendment at the very end of the consolidated
section.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not being consolidated anymore.
MS. QUESADA: No, it has been separated.
MR. OPLE: It has been separated again. Anyway, on Section 14, after the
very end of the present sentence and research on health care problems,
please add
the following: AND CORRECT THE HISTORIC IMBALANCES IN THE DELIVERY
OF HEALTH CARE TO THE RURAL AREAS.
May I explain briefly, Madam President.
During the period of interpellations on this subject, this Commissions
records would reflect the admission of the Committee through Commissioner
Quesada
that there is, in fact, a very gross disparity now existing in the health care
services available to the urban areas and the services available to the
rural areas. She admitted that although we have a glut of nursing graduates
sent abroad, there are no takers among nurses and doctors for vacancies
existing in the rural health units of the country. The reason is that the
countryside is too unattractive for doctors and nurses. That is why we hear
from
representatives of Mindanao that there are millions in Mindanao, in the
countryside, who live and die without ever seeing a single doctor or a nurse.
Although this is probably an extreme example in the case of Mindanao, the
fact that many Filipinos live and die without seeing a doctor reflects a
nationwide reality outside the cities.
Therefore, I strongly urge the Committee, in interest of social justice, for
those deprived of medical care in the rural areas, to give a countervailing
bias now in this section so that the redressing of this imbalance in health
care for the rural areas, for the rural poor in particular, will be part of the
mandate of the health section of the Article on Social Justice.
MR. BENGZON: May the Committee react first to that amendment before any
proposals are presented, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, we have taken into consideration the
rationale behind the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople. We have
act taken his
proposed term TO UNDERTAKE APPROPRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER
DEVELOPMENT which would now encompass the need of redirecting the
health manpower development
so that we can address these resources to the needs of the country
particularly the rural poor. But we do not want to specify manpower
development as it
would be only one development.
MR. OPLE: It is not only manpower development but the whole range of
services under the integrated and comprehensive health care and
development program.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, the concept of manpower development being from
production to utilization management, which includes the deployment
distribution of the
health manpower resource.
So, we are really addressing this redirection in the manpower training and
education to meet the needs of our people, particularly the rural poor.
MR. BENGZON: We cannot accept the amendment.
MR. OPLE: The Committee does admit that this a very grave problem not
only of health but also of social justice. If this is correct and it rises to that
gravity, should it not deserve some explicit mention in this section?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, I concur with Commissioner Ople. This is why I
have an amendment to his amendment and perhaps we could put it
together. After
research, add the phrase AND ENSURE THE EVEN REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION
OF HEALTH PERSONNEL. I concur with Commissioner Ople because statistics
would show
that only 30 percent of the entire force of physicians are in the rural areas
serving 70 percent of the population. I mentioned earlier that although there
are 92,000 rural health workers, there is an uneven distribution in the

country. So, with this amendment, I strongly urge this concept of redressing
the
imbalances through coming up with an amendment, like that of
Commissioner Ople and my amendment, in the spirit of a more even regional
distribution of
health care services.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may the Committee reply?
MR. MONSOD: I think the minutes of committee meetings and the minutes of
these discussions as well as the explanation of Commissioner Quesada very
clearly
say that the words in Section 13 already include the concept that the
Gentleman is stating. We are willing to have these interpretations read into
the
Record in order that the interpretation is not lost. However, we regret that we
cannot add these words because they are already subsumed and included in
the total concept of the Committee. I believe Commissioner Ople is a
member of the Committee and he will recall that when we were discussing
this, he
suggested that this was all being considered already and we feel that it is not
necessary to add these words anymore.
MR. OPLE: If the intent is very clearly and emphatically recorded, I will go
along with the Committee, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: My amendment, Madam President, is a simple amendment.
It is an amendment by addition on Section 14. After shall, add the words
ESTABLISH
AND so that it shall read: The State shall ESTABLISH AND maintain an
effective food and drug regulatory system.
This is a consequence of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Davide

and adopted by the Committee.
MS. QUESADA: We accept the amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more proponents of amendments.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, there is indeed a proposed amendment which
should immediately follow Section 14. With the indulgence of the Floor
Leader, may I
state this proposed amendment now, in association with Commissioners
Aquino, Sarmiento, Calderon, Tingson and Rodrigo. It merely says: SECTION
15. THE CARE
AND WELFARE OF THE ELDERLY SHALL ENJOY STATE SUPPORT AND
PROTECTION.
May I explain briefly, Madam President?
The reason for this amendment is that throughout the Article on Social
Justice and also the Article on Declaration of Principles, this Commission has
already acknowledged the fundamental entitlement to the protection of the
State of various disadvantaged groups. These include, of course, workers and
peasants, women at work, minors. That just about leaves out just one more
very important and strategic segment of the work force that should be
entitled to
our protection. They are the ones that have withdrawn from the work force
through retirement. There are eight million members of the Social Security
System, many of whom are attaining the age of retirement. There are one
million members of the GSIS, many of whom are also attaining the age of
retirement.
There is a nationwide clamor from all of these retirees for the government to
set right the pension schemes for which they have contributed all of their
working lives but out of which they now get a mere pittance.
I was in San Miguel, Bulacan the other day and some of the government
retirees spoke to me. They retired about 10 years ago. They said 10 years
ago, this
P200 from the GSIS could still buy three sacks of rice. Today, they get the
same amount and this can hardly buy a sack of rice. Of course, the retirees
do
not have champions unlike those still enrolled in the active labor force.
Throughout the world, governments are now moved by the advancing social
morality
of the age. They are taking vigorous steps to redress the disadvantages for
the elderly, those who will retire from the work force.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. May the Chair propound one question, if I can
be allowed to propound one question?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. It is a great honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the veterans be included because we have been
receiving so many communications, hundreds of them, asking for the
protection also of the
rights of veterans?
MR. OPLE: The veterans are included to the extent that they are retirees of
the government or of the private sector and, therefore, are enrolled in the
SSS
or in the GSIS.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I add a little word in support of this
amendment.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, those of us who are over 60 years old in this
Constitutional Commission would like to say that we cannot avoid growing
old,
but we can avoid growing cold. We read in a very well-known publication all
over the world, entitled Daily Bread, that growing old has some definite
advantages. If God gave us full use of our mental faculties, the sunset years
provide a wonderful opportunity of coming to terms with our past. So, the
elderly should be protected in the sense that they should be supported. The
care and welfare of the elderly shall enjoy the support and protection of the
State because the elderly are not afraid of tomorrow. They have seen
yesterday and they are in love with today. A famous poet aptly said:
The vain regrets of yesterday had vanished through Gods pardoning grace.
The guilty fear has passed away and joy has come to take its place.
Madam President, I strongly support this amendment because those of us
who are getting old would like to say: Come, grow old with me; the best is
yet to
be.
We have in the section on family rights a provision which says that the State
shall encourage the Filipino tradition of the family taking care of the
elderly. We recognize that the practice of the State taking care of the elderly
is a western tradition. But while the State and government agencies may be
able to take care of the elderly, the elderly will die not from lack of care but
from a broken heart. I do not know that this provision shall relate to
that provision in the Article on Family Rights.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President
Mention has been made by the President on voluminous letters we receive
from war veterans and government retirees. Commissioner Nolledo and I
filed
Resolution No. 497 for these war veterans and government retirees, and this
had been referred to the Committee on Declaration of Principles. So, I would
not present it at this time in the Article on Social Justice because it is
appropriately referred to the Committee on Declaration of Principles.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the Committees reaction to this Ople amendment?
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, we do sympathize with the concern of the
Commissioners but we would like to state that Section 13, indeed, takes into
consideration such concern for the elderly when this special group has been
singled out as one of the underprivileged to which the State should afford
protection because it includes not only the right to health but also the other
essential social services which this particular disadvantaged or
underprivileged group would be able to obtain. So, we feel that providing
another special section would open the floodgates to other sections that
would
include special care for the aged, the sick and women.
MR. OPLE: May I call for a vote, Madam President. And in this respect, may I
amend our own amendment so that it will include the veterans.
MR. DAVIDE: Before the amendment is put vote, I seek to introduce some
amendments.
Both proponents took into account only the elderly; we have forgotten the
orphans and the abandoned children. So, I seek to amend the second line by
inserting before ELDERLY the following: ORPHANS, ABANDONED
CHILDREN, WAR VETERANS AND THE ELDERLY.
MR. MONSOD: Yesterday, Madam President, there was a discussion here on
the section for minors, in which the phrase ORPHANS AND ABANDONED
CHILDREN was to
be included. We believe that both the suggestions of Commissioner Ople and
Commissioner Davide are amply covered in Section 13 because that section
talks
about the underprivileged, the elderly, women and children, and it is in the
context of a total approach to health care.
Secondly, the other aspect of taking care of the elderly will be provided for in
the section on family rights as mentioned by Commissioner Bennagen.
So, we believe that this is amply covered in this section on social justice and
health services.
The veterans would be included in the elderly as well because veterans are
approaching old age.
If the proponents insist on their amendments, then we are willing to call for a
vote and ask for the judgment of the body on whether their inclusion would
not be redundant.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I reply briefly to the Committee before the
amendment is voted upon?
MR. OPLE: I appreciate the intervention of other colleagues Commissioners
de Castro, Davide, Sarmiento, and above all, Monsod, on behalf of the
Committee
concerning this subject. However, I think they missed the jugular issue
behind this proposed amendment.
As I said in my remarks, we are not talking of family obligations to the
elderly. They have earned their right in the Social Security System and in the
Government Service Insurance System by paying to these funds all their
working lives, only to be rewarded later with pittances, strictly
disproportionate
to the money they have paid out of their very low wages throughout their
working lives. The veterans, of course, already have earned a niche for
themselves
in the Declaration of Principles.
The de Castro amendment is actually taken from a provision already existing,
I understand, in the Declaration of Principles.
So, when we speak of State protection for the elderly, we are giving a
mandate especially to the SSS, the GSIS and the Pension Funds of the Armed
Forces of
the Philippines, that they should not cheat their own members by denying
them living retirement pay that they have already earned in this system by
faithfully remitting their premium contributions all of their working lives.
That is one very important significance of this proposed amendment, Madam
President.
MR. MONSOD: May we just say that Section 13 precisely begins with the
phrase The State shall protect and promote and talks of a comprehensive
integrated
health care to all the people, with priority to the elderly and the aged, et
cetera. So, we believe that this amply covers the elderly. However, we leave
it to the vote of the body, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: We have been talking about the elderly, war veterans and
government retirees. I believe, and I made mention of my Resolution No. 497
co-authored with Commissioner Nolledo, it is timely that we read a provision
of Resolution No. 497. It says:
It shall be the responsibility of the State to provide adequate care and
benefits for war veterans and government retirees as well as their
dependents
commensurate with their present conditions in life. Preference shall be given
these war veterans and government retirees in the acquisition of public lands
and the development of natural resources.
May I be allowed to explain this.
THE PRESIDENT: But the point is that this particular idea of the Gentleman is
already in the Article on Declaration of Principles. That is what I
understand; that is what was stated. What we have here now is just
Commissioner Oples amendment on the welfare of the elderly.
MR. DE CASTRO: I was thinking if the elderly can also be included in this
resolution because they are also war veterans and government retirees.
While this
was referred by the Committee on the Accountability of Public Officers to the
Committee on Declaration of Principles, it is not yet in the report of the
Committee on Declaration of Principles because the reference was late.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Ople agreeable to the suggestion of
Commissioner de Castro? Actually, the proposal of Commissioner de Castro is
an amendment
to the amendment.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I am a veteran of World War II but I am not
retired. There are 600,000 veterans in the country. Approximately half of
these are
retired and the others are not retired. However, there is no bar to providing
for the veterans in our proposed amendment although the right place for
veterans . . . I would like to be associated with Commissioner de Castro in
that proposal provided it is appropriately located in the Article on
Declaration of Principles or in the General Provisions, perhaps immediately
following the statement concerning the Armed Forces and the defense of the
State.
THE PRESIDENT: So, just to clarify from the Committee. The Committee does
not accept the proposed Ople amendment. It does not also accept the
inclusion of
the issue on veterans in this particular section of the Article on Social Justice.
Is that correct?
MR. SUAREZ: May we ask for a suspension of the session.
It was 12:18 p.m.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I withdraw my amendment to the Ople proposal
because I sincerely believe that provisions on war veterans and government
retirees
properly belong to the Article on Declaration of Principles.
We will now proceed to vote on the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Considering that there are several issues related to this,
whether this particular amendment would be proper in the Article on
Declaration of
Principles, I would raise a privilege motion. The privilege motion is to
consider the Ople proposal in the Article on Declaration of Principles.
MR OPLE: I oppose this motion, Madam President and I would like a vote on
it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will put it to a vote then Actually in the vote, we may
already consider the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople, whether
this
proposed section should be adopted in the section of the Article on Social
Justice or not. Is that correct?
MR. DAVIDE: So, the privilege motion is to take this up when we consider the
Article on Declaration of Principles.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be the effect of whatever action is taken by the
body.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of including this Ople amendment on the
elderly in the Article on Social Justice, please raise their hand.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we restate the motion submitted by
Honorable Davide? I think it is the other way around.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, the motion is not clear, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: The motion is to consider this Ople proposal in the Article on
MR. OPLE: I support the decision of the Chair, which was very deliberately
arrived at, that the voting be on the amendment itself.
RULING OF THE CHAIR
THE PRESIDENT: While Commissioner Davide said that this motion is a
privilege motion, I believe we should take this up directly to the point
whether this
proposed section properly belongs to the Article on Social Justice. If it is so
decided by the body, then we will vote on whether it should be included. In
other words, are we in favor of this particular section? It does not necessarily
mean that if it is adopted, that if we agree that it be included here, the
section itself on v elderly is meritorious. Should it be here or should it be in

some other section? That is the point that we should first decide.
Secondly, if it should be here, are we in favor? If it is properly here in the
Article on Social Justice, are we in favor of having a separate section on
the elderly or is it already included, as stated by the Committee, in Section
13 where the word aged is already stated? That is how the Chair sees it.
MR. OPLE: Just to simplify, Madam President, are we voting on the merits of
this amendment first?
THE PRESIDENT: Not yet because the Davide amendment proposes an
alternative. Should it be here or should it be in some other section? So, let us
first
decide where it should belong in the Article on Declaration of Principles,
General Provisions or Family Rights, as stated by Commissioner Davide?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will it be possible for Commissioner Davide to
agree to a voting on the merits? If it loses, then that will not bar anyone from
taking this up again in connection with the report of the Committee on the
Declaration of Principles?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would prefer it that way.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Davide say?
MR. DAVIDE: I really consider it a prejudicial question because there are
proposals that it should be in the Declaration of Principles or anywhere else.
There are proposals that it should be here. So, we should decide first whether
it should be here or in the Declaration of Principles.
THE PRESIDENT: Or somewhere else?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So, if you vote yes, then you believe that this is a proper
provision in the Article on Social Justice. If you vote no, then you believe it
should be somewhere else, either in the Article on Family Rights, Declaration
of Principles or General Provisions.
MR. MONSOD: May we just say that the Committees position is that it is
meritorious and it is already included in Section 13.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of considering this proposed Ople

amendment as part of the Article on Social Justice, please raise their hand.
(Few
their hand.)
The results show 15 votes in favor and 19 against; the Ople amendment
would not be considered in the Article on Social Justice but may be
considered in
some other Article of the Constitution.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is still one anterior provision that has not
been voted on as a complete text. May I ask that we vote on Section 14, as
amended.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Quesada please read Section 14, as
amended?
MS. QUESADA: The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and
drug regulatory system and UNDERTAKE appropriate health manpower
development and
research RESPONSIVE TO THE COUNTRYS HEALTH NEEDS AND problems.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
Section 14, as amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no proponents of amendments to the
last section which is Section 15. So, I ask that we vote on Section 15 as a
whole.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Quesada please read Section 15?
MS. QUESADA: The State shall establish a special body for disabled persons
for THEIR rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance AND towards their
total integration to the mainstream of society.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a very minor amendment, and that is to delete
towards.
THE PRESIDENT: So, it will read: self-reliance AND their total integration.
MS. QUESADA: The amendment is accepted.

MR. OPLE: May I ask the Committee a question? Does the term disabled in
this context also include, let us say, ex-convicts, people who are in most
ways
psychologically wounded, and presumably in a certain narrow context also
disabled, and in many ways, also legally and socially disabled because in a
society like ours, they are subject to continuing penalties of ostracism? Are
the ex-prisoners- and ex-convicts included within the compass of the
disabled
in this sense?
MR. BENNAGEN: Profiting from the extensive deliberations we had with the
representatives of the disabled, my understanding of a disabled is one who
suffers
from some kind of derangement, but not necessarily by virtue of his being an
ex-convict because ex-convicts would be adequately rehabilitated.
MR. OPLE: Yes. Does the Gentleman consider them qualified for the
rehabilitation services provided for in this section?
MR. BENNAGEN: I think they have to enter what we call the access agencies
and should be properly categorized as such depending on their personal
situations.
MR. OPLE: Does the Committee adopt this position of Commissioner
Bennagen?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, this was based on the public hearings with the disabled
groups.
MR. OPLE: Because this will save me and the Committee the trouble of
proposing an amendment if this is not included within the definition of the
disabled.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, as a matter of fact, the original proposal only referred
to those who are mentally and physically handicapped. Some members of
the
Committee objected to that definition because that would exclude a huge

number of people who are disabled mentally, sensorially, psychologically, et
cetera.
MR. OPLE: On that understanding, since the Committee has adopted this, I
will not press my amendment.
MR. BENGZON: May we vote now on Section 15?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the only remaining section under this Article is
the section on peoples organizations. I understand that the Committee
would
like to finish this now.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, excuse me. May the Committee be allowed
to state its position regarding this particular section.
MR. SUAREZ: May we request the recognition Honorable Garcia?
MR. GARCIA: First of all, we would like to read Sections 19 and 20, as revised,
after having considered the amendments and suggestions of various
Commissioners, especially Commissioners Davide, Ople, Rosario Braid,
Romulo and, of course, the members of the Committee. So, with you is the
original
draft of the Committee plus a half page where we make an effort to give the
definition of peoples organizations as part of Section 19. So, I will read the
two sections and then give a very brief explanation.
SEC. 19. In the pursuit of the ends of Social Justice, the State shall respect
the independence and the role of peoples organizations as a means of
empowering the people to pursue and protect through peaceful means their
legitimate and collective interests and aspirations.
Peoples organizations are bona-fide associations of citizens with identifiable
leadership, membership and structure and demonstrated capacity to
promote
the public interest.
SEC. 20. The State shall respect the right of the people and their
organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social,
political and economic decision-making, and shall MAKE POSSIBLE adequate
consultation mechanisms.
I will present a very brief explanation for Sections 19 and 20 and why we feel
these are very important and integral parts of the entire Article on Social
Justice.
Empowering the people is a key to the attainment of the ends of social
justice. So, in this new constitution, we feel we must recognize that peoples
organizations can be one significant vehicle in this progressive and
democratic tradition. The majority of no wealth nor political influence can
empower
themselves through peoples organizations that are popular and authentic
expressions of their will. Indeed, it is argued here that peoples power can
find
most permanent, organized and articulate expression through such
organizations within the democratic framework. The new constitution must,
therefore,
recognize the role of peoples organizations as a principal means of
empowering the people to pursue and protect, in a peaceful manner, popular
and social
reforms and mandate the State to respect their independence as
autonomous checks to State power. Finally, the new constitution must also
institutionalize
peoples participation and ensure consultation among the basic sectors at all
levels of social, political and economic decision-making, guaranteeing that
the people have access to information necessary to make informed and
responsible decisions. Concretely, the State must be mandated to make
possible proper
and adequate consultation mechanisms with the people, and the formulation
and implementation of local, regional and national priorities, plans, programs
and projects that affect the peoples lives. Thus, in sum, empowerment of
the people is the enabling mechanism in the cause of social justice and
peoples
power can find more permanent expression in peoples organizations and
through the institutionalization of consultation mechanisms that insure
peoples
participation in decision-making.
We would like now to ask if there are others who may wish to add or amend.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, this is a brief amendment. I would like the
Committee to consider the deletion of the opening clause In the pursuit of
Social
Justice because it is really unnecessary. This whole Article is devoted to
social justice and Sections 1 and 2 lay down the basic premise and spell out
the means of carrying it out. So, I really do not think the opening clause is
necessary.
MR. GARCIA: We thought it is important to place it because peoples
organizations are precise vehicles and enabling mechanisms to achieve
social justice.
Of course, it is within the context of the whole Article.
MR. ROMULO: So are the other provisions but we do not begin the other
provisions with In the pursuit of social justice, agrarian reform, urban
reform, et
cetera.
MR. GARCIA: That is true but in a sense, this is a summary of the different
sections. We realize that we are going to draft an imperfect constitution and,
therefore, it will be up to many of the peoples movements and organizations
advocating the protection and the interest of their specific sectors like the
farmers in land reform and the urban poor to pursue and pressure Congress
so that it can be responsive to enact the laws that will definitely meet their
basic needs. So, it is a summary that for social justice to be pursued and
perfected, these peoples organizations will finish whatever we have
accomplished.
MR. ROMULO: Although it can have the meaning that the other sections are
not in the pursuit of social justice.
MR. GARCIA: It does not have that meaning, of course.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to ask a basic question.

MR. BENGZON: Madam President, can we finish first the proposal of
MR. RODRIGO: I am sorry.
MR. ROMULO: If the Committee does not accept the amendment, I will not
insist on that. May I ask what is the position of the Committee.
MR. GARCIA: We would prefer to have this phrase in the section.
MR. ROMULO: Is that the Committees response?
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee does not accept the amendment.
MR. GARCIA: The Committee is divided; there are some who feel that it can . .
.
MR. ROMULO: Then may I ask for a vote.
MR. SUAREZ: How would the amendment read?
MR. ROMULO: I would delete the phrase In the pursuit of Social Justice and
start with The State.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted now by the Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: We ask for a vote, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, please
hand.)
is approved.
MR. ROMULO: I have another amendment on the first line. It will be on the
words the independence and. I believe that this may be misinterpreted to
mean
that other forms of organizations and associations which are guaranteed
under the Bill of Rights are not entitled to independence because we are
singling
out for respect only the so-called peoples organizations. What about the
other associations like civic, religious unions, etc. which are guaranteed
under
the Bill of Rights?
MR. GARCIA: In our understanding, many of these associations and
organizations can be classified as peoples organizations. But the term
independence is
important because we want to ensure that these organizations are not
simply or merely a creation of the State, that they are not manipulated in
any way
like what we had in the past. And so, it is important to maintain that
independence so that they can be a check on the power of the State, that
they are
never instruments only of whatever group.
MR. ROMULO: So, the Gentleman does not mean to imply that the other
types of organizations and associations which are guaranteed under the Bill
of Rights
do not deserve a respect of their independence?
MR. GARCIA: Of course, they have a right to that independence too. But what
is important is that very often we have organizations that are created, like
our experience with the Samahang Nayon, which are simply manipulations or
instruments of the State. And we want to ensure that there are no labor
unions,
trade unions, or any other organizations that are used for that purpose.
MR. ROMULO: The other implication is that since the Gentleman wants the
State to respect their independence, the State may pass laws or regulations
ostensibly for the purpose of protecting their independence. Has the
Committee considered that? This may have a reverse effect.
MR. GARCIA: We do not believe so, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, would it solve the Gentlemans anxiety over
the interpretation if we transpose the word independent and say: The
State
shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT peoples organizations?
MR. ROMULO: Why do we not say: THE INDEPENDENT ROLE OF PEOPLES

ORGANIZATIONS? So that the emphasis on independence is not necessarily
to the
organization but to the role which is the principal point.
MR. BENGZON: Yes. The State shall respect the INDEPENDENT ROLE . . .
MR. GARCIA: I am sorry. It is not simply the role but also their independence. .
. We should not touch the autonomous and authentic character of those
organizations.
MR. ROMULO: But that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. That is my
whole point. If we single out one type of organization whose independence
must be
respected by the State, by implication, we are vitiating the general
protection provided under the Bill of Rights.
MR. GARCIA: Anyway, the understanding I have is that the Gentleman is, in
fact, underscoring the importance of this thing. But if he wishes, the
sentence
which reads: The State shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLES
ORGANIZATIONS would at least emphasize the importance.
MR. ROMULO: Could the Gentleman read it again?
MR. GARCIA: The State shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLES
ORGANIZATIONS.
MR. ROMULO: Fine; I accept.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Rodrigo have any comment on this?
MR. RODRIGO: No, I have another amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: How is it now, Commissioner Garcia?
MR. GARCIA: The amendment will read: The State shall respect the role of
INDEPENDENT PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS . . .
Commissioner Romulo which was accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President. If we put the adjective
INDEPENDENT before PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS which will be like this:
The State shall
respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS, it would seem
that there are peoples organizations which are not independent. I would just
omit
the adjective INDEPENDENT, and it will read: The State shall respect the
role of PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Romulo say?
MR. ROMULO: No, the implication is wrong. Precisely, we want the State to
respect only a bona-fide independent peoples organization, not a company
union.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, that is the idea.
MR. GARCIA: Not just any group of individuals.
MR. COLAYCO: I fail to see the difference there. I think that the word
INDEPENDENT is a surplusage.
MR. COLAYCO: I do not mind if we do not have this.
MR. BENNAGEN: On behalf of the Committee, I think the same issue was
raised with respect to the right of independent peasant organizations. We are
saying
here that there are all sorts of peoples organizations and some of these are
really company unions and that they carry the government line. But we
would
like to encourage as a source of complementary structures the existence of
independent organizations that can develop their development programs
apart from
those that are pursued by governmental structures.
For instance, we can mention peasant organizations that are really only
supportive of existing government programs, which need not really redound
to the
benefit of the peasant themselves.
MR. COLAYCO: Company unions are not necessarily openly dependent. They
become dependent when it is proven that they are company unions. I mean,
prima
facie, all organizations are independent. Even if we put INDEPENDENT
PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS, company unions can always claim that.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is a manner of speaking. We can cite maybe a more
specific example, the Kabataang Barangay, which in itself is a kind of youth
organization which is also under the ambit of peoples organization. But they
can be manipulated to carry on the party line as it were. That is what we
want to avoid.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, but I mean, by simply putting INDEPENDENT PEOPLES
ORGANIZATIONS does not stamp any organization for that matter as
independent. As I
said, a company union can always claim to be an independent organization,
which they always do anyway.
MR. BENNAGEN: I cannot follow because by definition, when we speak of
company union, it carries the thrust of the company which may become
productive to
the interest of authentic labor unions.
MR. COLAYCO: But they are not officially called company unions. I will not
press my point on this. I think that saving the time of the Commission is
more
important than this.
MR. BENNAGEN: Even ILO Convention 141, to which the Philippines is a
signatory, assigns this role to independent organizations.
MR. RAMA: The Commission is ready to vote, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Is this clear: The State shall respect the role of
INDEPENDENT PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS? That is what is to be voted upon.
As many as are in favor of this particular amendment, please raise their
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Nobody raised his hand.)
MR. RODRIGO: I register my abstention, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, we will just announce the results.
The results show 28 votes in favor, no vote against and one abstention; the
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask that I be recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Just a basic question. I have before me the text of the Bill of
Rights which we have approved already. Section 7 provides:
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form associations, unions or societies for purposes not contrary to
Section 9 reads:
No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
I would like to ask: Do these provisions not cover the peoples
organizations which are sought to be protected again by the government
under Sections 19
and 20?
MR. GARCIA: Sections 19 and 20 have a very particular thrust: as an enabling
mechanism precisely to make social justice real. The encouragement is given
to
the people that they organize themselves, that they protect their legitimate
interests peacefully through their collective efforts. That is the whole
thrust.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I understand.
MR. GARCIA: Therefore, what does it do? It refines and it amplifies what we
already have in the Bill of Rights, specifically, because of the whole vision
that we have of social justice. If the Gentleman will remember, when we
began the definition, we said to redistribute wealth and power. In other
words,
it is not simply the State later on which will ensure that all of these
protections and recognition of rights are given but the people also must have
a
legitimate share of political power for them to participate. And so, this is the
vehicle for them.
MR. RODRIGO: I just want to be very brief. So is it my understanding now that
even without these provisions, the general provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of
our Bill of Rights would cover this, but for emphasis the Committee wants to
particularize?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, that is the intent, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: But this is already covered in general.
MR. GARCIA: The general rights are found in the Bill of Rights.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this is only to particularize and for emphasis.
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are three more speakers on the two
sections. May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized?
I have very few simple amendments. On line 4, Section 19, delete the words
the people and substitute the word THEM.
MR. GARCIA: We accept, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment?
MR. GARCIA: Excuse me. I am sorry. This is not simply to empower the
organization but the people. It is a vehicle to empower the people.
MR. DAVIDE: The proper reference to that would really be the peoples
organization. So, it is to these organizations that the respect must be
accorded to.
MR. GARCIA: No, I am sorry. It is basic to the people.
MR. DAVIDE: In effect, we will broaden the provision, and it might become
rather deceptive.
MR. DAVIDE: The State shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLES
ORGANIZATIONS as a means of empowering them to pursue and protect
through peaceful
means their legitimate. . ., meaning again, the organization.
MR. GARCIA: No. Madam President; in fact, many people are unorganized
while others are organizing, but some are already organized. In a sense, we
are
trying to say that only a citizenry that is organized and mobilized can really
pursue this very difficult endeavor of the State. In fact, if the Gentleman
will remember, in many of the previous interventions, when we spoke of the
unfinished popular revolution of February, we said it was a political act and
that the social changes which are unfinished still have to be pursued. It is not
only the task of the State but also the people. We will still have to
pursue this through their organizations.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, these organizations would be the vehicle of the
people?
MR. DAVIDE: Then I will not insist. But after the word protect, I would seek
certain transpositions. Delete through peaceful means and in lieu thereof
insert the following: WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK. And then, after
aspirations, insert THROUGH PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS. So, it will
read: the
people to pursue and protect, WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK, their
legitimate and collective interests and aspirations THROUGH PEACEFUL AND
LAWFUL
MEANS.
MR. GARCIA: We accept, Madam President.
Commissioner Davide which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I move to delete the phrase as a means of
empowering the people on lines 2 and 3 of Section 19.

MR. SUAREZ: Excuse me. Could Commissioner Aquino repeat the proposed
amendment?
MS. AQUINO: Delete the phrase as a means of empowering the people. I
believe that it is an abstract diversion which conjures an image of an
adversarial
or conflict situation, and I would much rather that we focus clearly on the
intent which is to pursue and protect within the democratic framework, after
the Davide amendment, their legitimate and collective interests and
aspirations.
MR. GARCIA: Excuse me, Madam President. May I answer? I believe that the
phrase empowering the people is very important here. Our experience in
the past,
precisely, underlines the fact that unless our people are organized and
mobilized to pursue their collective interests and their legitimate ends, they
are
powerless. Precisely, our purpose is to mention this.
MR. AZCUNA: I would like to suggest only that instead of deleting it, why not
just say TO ENABLE the people, because the phrase empowering the
people
is really objectionable. Power is supposed to reside in the people and the
State should not empower the people because they already have the power.
What we
should do is to enable the people to exercise that power. So, I believe it
would be better if we say: The State shall respect the role of independent
peoples organizations TO ENABLE the people to pursue and protect,
because it is the people who really should do this.
MS. AQUINO: I accept, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Aquino say?
MS. AQUINO: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. GARCIA: I just want to make a clarification. Here, we are not saying that
the State will empower the people not at all. We are saying that the
organizations are the means of empowering the people. It is an injunction; in
fact, it is almost an encouragement for them to get organized and to be
involved. It is very difficult for people to be involved individually if they are

going to protect their interests. They, therefore, must discover that
vehicle which will empower them and these are the organizations we are
referring to.
MR. BENNAGEN. May I, Madam President?
MR. BENNAGEN: I think the idea really is for people, in their organized
numbers, to recover their power which has been lost by their being atomized
into
passive individuals; and for me, it may not really be necessary because it
can lend a number of misinterpretations. All we want to say is that the
people,
to recover their sense of strength, must come together to pursue their
collective interests. I think that is the intent and not for anything. It is not for
the State or an external agency to provide this power but the people
themselves must recover and restore this to themselves.
MR. AZCUNA: So, we reiterate our amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Azcuna satisfied?
MR. AZCUNA: No, Madam President. We would like to insist on the
amendment to delete the phrase as a principal means of empowering the
people and instead,
insert the phrase TO ENABLE the people. So that it will read: The State
shall respect the role of independent peoples organizations TO ENABLE the
people to pursue and protect . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Instead of empowering, it will be TO ENABLE the people.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the situation calls for a vote now.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. As many as are in favor of this proposed amendment of
Commissioners Aquino and Azcuna, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised
their hand.)
hand.)
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no amendments to Section 20, which
is the last section; so I ask that a vote be taken on Section 20.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not yet voted on Section 19 as a whole. Will
Commissioner Garcia please read Section 19, as amended?
MR. GARCIA: Section 19, as amended, will read: The State shall respect the
role of independent peoples organizations to enable the people to pursue
and
protect within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective
interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a second paragraph.
MR. GARCIA: There are no amendments on the second paragraph.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I suggest that we limit the vote to the first
sentence, because I would like to engage in a brief discussion later on
concerning the second sentence.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, just a very minor point which will be
affected by the second paragraph.
I notice that we are about to vote on the paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the first paragraph.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. When we talk of independent
peoples organizations, the apostrophe is after the letter e while in the
Committee
definition, the apostrophe is after the letter s. Which is which, because the
meaning will vary?
MR. GARCIA: Peoples is with an apostrophe after the letter e; it is just a
typographical error.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the first paragraph of Section 19
which has been read by Commissioner Garcia, please raise their hand.
(Several
hand.)
The results show 38 votes in favor and no vote against; the first sentence of
There is a second paragraph which was read before by Commissioner Garcia.
MR. GARCIA: PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS ARE BONA-FIDE ASSOCIATIONS OF
CITIZENS WITH IDENTIFIABLE LEADERSHIP, MEMBERSHIP AND STRUCTURE
AND DEMONSTRATED CAPACITY
TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
MR. OPLE: Will the Committee yield to some questions concerning the second
paragraph?
First of all, do I understand it right that this is a consolidation of several
proposed amendments which were earlier brought to the attention of the
Committee by Commissioners Christian Monsod, Ricardo Romulo, Hilario
Davide, Jr. and myself?
This definition of peoples organization is acceptable to me, being one of the
proponents of the amendment which are now considered subsumed in this
definition. But I thought I would make the observation that indeed, this draft
Constitution, not only in the Article on Social Justice but in other
Articles, will probably stand out among contemporary constitutions once it is
ratified in one respect: there is a fairly ubiquitous reference to peoples
power in several forms as one of the guiding principles for a new social order
that is, in effect, ordained by this Constitution. Thus, people
organizations may initiate amendments to the Constitution and the laws
through the power of initiative and referendum already vested in them
elsewhere.
They may even overthrow a government that will become a traitor to the
people and their Constitution. This is found in the Declaration of Principles.
They
shall participate in carrying out the mandates on social justice, especially in

the fields of labor and agrarian reform. And under this new section that we
are considering, they are constitutionalized for purposes of participating in all
levels of decision-making of the government and they initiate the
socioeconomic structures that will best conform to the standards of social
justice.
So, with all the powers and duties vested in these organizations, I am glad
the Committee has agreed to incorporate a definition of these organizations.
However, I would like to call the attention of the Committee, or I should put
this as a question to the Committee I suppose that peoples organizations do
embrace all groups of citizens that band together voluntarily for the pursuit
of public interest. Would that be correct?
MR. GARCIA: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Therefore, this would include both labor and peasant
organizations?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, including professional, neighborhood and civic associations,
ethnic and cultural groups, and so on.
MR. OPLE: And presumably, because of the tripartite character of
negotiations for industrial peace, these should also include associations of
landowners an
associations of business and industry.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, because they also pursue the public interest.
MR. OPLE: May I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the
case of bona-fide labor and peasant organizations, they do write their own
constitutions and bylaws embodying their principles as well as their rules of
internal life. And in the case of labor organizations, these are deposited in
the competent authority of the government; that is, the Ministry of Labor and
Employment. Of course, when one determines the most representative
workers
organization for the purpose of appointing delegates to international labor
conferences, these reports also serve as a basis for determining who should
be
chosen. The Committee had earlier considered, as part of my proposed
amendment, a minor requirement where, just in the case of bona-fide labor
organizations, the peoples organizations which were given these powers in
the Constitution would be asked to submit their constitutions and bylaws,
together with the list of their elected and appointive officers, and these are
deposited in the office of the government with competent authority.
Since labor organizations are already covered by these laws, then the rigor of
the qualifications to be considered bona-fide and independent peoples
organization would be higher in the case of labor than in the case of other
organizations, including civic associations. Would that be correct?
MR. GARCIA: We are not trying to establish a hierarchy of one being more
important than the other. We are saying that they have an equal rule. In as
far as
they can protect the public interests in a far more effective and better way . .
.
MR. OPLE: I am describing an existing situation where by virtue of the
existing law, there is indeed a higher standard of rigor for labor organizations
than in the case of non-labor organizations, except those that register with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Would the Committee not consider equalizing this standard of rigor for all by
also requiring the other peoples organizations to deposit their
constitutions and bylaws in an appropriate office of the government?
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, there are also different levels of organizations
and their nature vary. Therefore, there are some who may not even have
constitutions and bylaws. They may just simply have a declaration of
principles and a program of action. Therefore, we also have to respect that
level of
political maturity or that level of organization which those groups have.
MR. OPLE: Yes. I am not going to insist on that.
MR. GARCIA: We would not want to impose simply one standard.
MR. OPLE: I am not going to insist on that because I already yielded to the
Committees request earlier. But would Commissioner Garcia, for purposes of
recording the intent of the Committee, not agree that in the future, all the
independent peoples organizations, considering the powers and duties
vested
in them in this Constitution, including the possibility of participating in
regional development councils and the planning work of the National
Economic
and Development Authority, should be encouraged to rise to a level of
maturity and responsibility where they will write their own constitutions and
bylaws
for their own internal guidance and for the guidance of those who support
them?
MR. GARCIA: Yes. According to their capability and capacity, of course, we

would like to encourage their political development and maturity.
MR. OPLE: If that is admitted as an objective under this paragraph, then I will
not insist on reviving that amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we can now take a vote on the second
paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Garcia read again the second paragraph?
MR. DAVIDE: I have a very minor amendment, Madam President, on the
second paragraph.
MR. DAVIDE: Before peoples, insert the word independent; and then
between the letters e and s in peoples, insert an apostrophe ().
THE PRESIDENT: Where will the word independent be?
MR. DAVIDE: Before the word peoples, place the word independent, then
place an apostrophe () between e and s in peoples.
MR. GARCIA: Accepted, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I propose an amendment by substituting the word
identifiable with IDENTIFIED unless the Committee intentionally used the
word
identifiable.
MR. GARCIA: It is identifiable.
MR. MAAMBONG: Because IDENTIFIED would mean that there is no other
action to be taken because they are already identified. In the case of
identifiable,
I would take it to mean that some effort has to be done and there is the
capability of identifying them. Why do we have to hide the identities? Why do
we
just say IDENTIFIED leadership?
MR. GARCIA: I do not think there is a need for that.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept?

MR. GARCIA: We do not accept.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will not press the amendment.
MR. RAMA: The amendment has been withdrawn, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote on the Davide amendment first.
MR. RAMA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: We would like to request Commissioner Davide to avoid
inserting the word INDEPENDENT because what we are defining here are
peoples
organizations, not independent peoples organizations. The word
INDEPENDENT is already in the first section and perhaps it is not necessary
to put this
here.
MR. DAVIDE: I think it is necessary because by virtue of the amendments
earlier introduced, the opening sentence of Section 19 will read: The State
shall
respect the role of independent peoples organizations to enable the people
to pursue and protect . . .
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, there is nothing in the definition that is
relevant to the word INDEPENDENT. The definition that is here is to
peoples
organizations. I am just wondering whether it is still necessary to put that.
Are we saying that to make the distinction here may not be necessary?
MR. RAMA: So, what is the position of the Committee so we can vote?
MR. MONSOD: We would rather not have the word INDEPENDENT. If the
Commissioner insists, we may have to go to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide insist?
MR. DAVIDE: I understand that Commissioner Garcia accepted it earlier. If
Commissioner Garcia would agree to the proposal of Commissioner Monsod, I
am not
insisting on that particular amendment.
MR. GARCIA: I concur with the opinion of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. DAVIDE: So, the only amendment is the apostrophe ().
MR. RAMA: So, we are now ready to vote on the amendment on the second
paragraph, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the second paragraph of Section
hand.)
The results show 39 votes in favor and no vote against; the second
paragraph of Section 19 is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is a minor amendment to Section 20 by
Commissioner Maambong.
MR. MAAMBONG: I propose a minor amendment on Section 20 by adding the
words AS DETERMINED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: Where?
MR. MAAMBONG: In the last sentence after the word mechanisms. I feel,
Madam President, that the phrase AS DETERMINED BY LAW is necessary in
order that
we could provide the mechanics and the process of consultation; otherwise,
the consultation mechanism would be meaningless.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say? May we have the reaction of
the Committee?
MR. GARCIA: The understanding is that whether there is a law or not, this
basic right must be respected and they should be consulted. The
consultation
mechanism itself could be threshed out and discussed, and later on, we need
not have a law for that right.

MR. MONSOD: The Committee believes that the phrase within the
democratic framework might already be sufficient that we do not need to
put the phrase AS
DETERMINED BY LAW.
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, there are already mechanisms in place
now that did not need legislation.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Maambong insist?
MR. MAAMBONG: My only point, Madam President, is that we make possible
adequate consultation mechanisms but if we do not operationalize this
consultation
mechanism by some law or some process, how could we make it effective?
MR. GARCIA: In fact, we have discussed that earlier. This is happening in
some of the ministries. In the Office of the President, there are already
consultations going on, but the mechanism itself will be refined by practice.
MR. BENNAGEN: I agree with the comments of Commissioners Monsod and
Garcia as to the spontaneous but rather effective and dynamic peoples
organizations
and consultations with government. I think the problem with including that
phrase AS DETERMINED BY LAW is for the law to delimit the possibilities of
peoples organizations consulting with government. We are saying that the
full potential of peoples organizations consulting with government cannot be
accommodated by law. Therefore, to put that is already to provide some
limitations to the fuller expression of peoples organizations.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, this is not really the intention of the
proponent but if the Committee feels that way, we do not have to put it to a
vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Maambong insist?

MR. MAAMBONG: We will submit.
MR. REGALADO: I proposed the same amendment before because even in
Section 3 (b), we stated that with respect to labor, they shall also participate
in
policy- and decision-making processes affecting their rights and interests as
may be provided by law. Is there a difference insofar as the participation of
labor is concerned?
MR. GARCIA: It appears in other peoples organizations as we already
mentioned. In fact, the executive department or the different ministries can
create
these mechanisms where the people can be consulted and their ideas be
incorporated for a better decision-making process. In other cases, the people
themselves can create these mechanisms and structures and invite all
officials involved so that the decision-making process can be made better.
MR. REGALADO: In the discussion that took place earlier, it was said that
Section 20 also encompasses the matter of labor unions. But here, the
proponents
do not want to have that phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW whereas,
under the subparagraph on labor, that phrase appears. So, if it is a labor
union on one
hand under Section 3 (b), they will be subjected to the provisions of the law.
However, in applying Section 20, the Committee does not want to have that
same regulatory provision.
MR. GARCIA: No, excuse me. I just want to clarify. What the Commissioner
intends is not to wait for the legislature to enact a law before consultation
mechanism can take place. In fact, we are saying it is already taking place. A
public hearing is a very clear example of how an interaction between those
who are supposed to enact laws and the people for whom the laws are
supposed to be made should be for a better process of lawmaking.
MR. REGALADO: So, it is a question of time. Why do we not say AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW?
MR. GARCIA: It is not merely a question of time. Very often those who govern
do not, in a sense, recognize the peoples right of participation and
consultation. And we feel that it is important to establish this principle here.
MR. REGALADO: Is it the apprehension of Commissioner Garcia that if we put

the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, the law may stifle their rights?
MR. GARCIA: It can be a constraining factor. In other words, the people will
feel that there might be a need for legislative action as a precondition
before they can exercise their right to participate using the proper
consultation mechanisms or before they, in fact, can organize.
MR. REGALADO: So, we go back to that original question we asked on labor
where he agreed that it should be a consultative process and their
participation
therein may be as provided by law because it might conflict with the other
existing laws. In effect, it is actually just a regulatory implementation.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, in the case of Section 3, on labor, it is not
only a question between organizations and the government; it is also a
question
of a third party, which is the enterprise. That is why it might be necessary to
have the law define the respective rights of these two the employer and
the employee.
In this case, we are referring to organizations of people themselves and,
secondly, these consultative mechanisms are already placed in many
sections of
the government. It might impair that right, if we have to say that it has to be
formalized in a law.
This section does not say that a law may not be passed. It is possible that it
will be passed. We are just saying that we do not want it to look like a
precondition for the exercise of consultation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Regalado introducing another amendment
which has been withdrawn by Commissioner Maambong?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President, I would prefer that this phrase stay
here, because in the first place, Commissioner Monsod says that there is
nothing
that will prevent the enactment of such a law. So, why not make it specific?
THE PRESIDENT: So, let us put it to a vote then. The proposed amendment is
to add the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
As many as are in favor of this proposed amendment of Commissioner
Regalado, please raise their hand.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President.

MR. BENNAGEN: Just two little comments.
MR. RAMA: When there is a voting going on, nobody can speak. We finish the
voting first.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: It has been sufficiently discussed. Commissioner Maambong
has discussed it; the Committee has answered it.
As many as are in favor of the amendment to include AS MAY BE PROVIDED
BY LAW, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
hand.)
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more amendments to Section 20,
so I ask that it be voted on as a whole.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Garcia please read the section.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the exact wording of the amendment AS DETERMINED BY
LAW or AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW?
MR. REGALADO: AS DETERMINED BY LAW was the amendment of
Commissioner Maambong who withdrew the same. Mine was AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just have a clarification. I believe
Commissioner Regalado already said that this does not mean that a law is a
precondition for consultation to take place. Is that a correct interpretation?
MR. REGALADO: That is precisely why the phrase used is AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW. There may be no law, or the present situation will just be
as it is.
But if Congress sees it fit to make some qualifications later on, then this will
not preempt Congress. Congress may even strengthen this consultative
process and require adequate mechanisms for such a consultation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this clear now with the Committee? Can we now read the
whole Section 20?
MR. GARCIA: Section 20, as amended, will read: The State shall respect the
right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable
participation at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making,
and shall make possible adequate consultation mechanisms AS MAY BE
PROVIDED
BY LAW.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 20, as amended, please
hand.)
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, I would like to abstain. I would simply like to
put on record that the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW substantially
weakens the provision.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just announce the result of the voting.
The results show 30 votes in favor, 6 votes against and 1 abstention; Section
20 is approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I just ask Commissioner Regalado one
MR. NOLLEDO: As I understand it, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW should
refer only to the mechanisms.
MR. REGALADO: No, it refers to the entire participation process. The law will
provide how it will be done or how the participation will be.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is not a precondition. In other words, it is not a

requirement that there must be a law to provide for this. Is that clear,
Commissioner Regalado?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President. That is why I used AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW as distinguished from AS DETERMINED BY LAW,
because the otter is a
precondition while the former is not.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, Congress cannot set forth limitations on the right.
MR. REGALADO: Again?
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, Congress cannot set forth limitations.
MR. REGALADO: Congress can stand there; it can strengthen, make more
effective, amplify, supplement or qualify.
MR. NOLLEDO: But not limit.
MR. REGALADO: Why should we preempt Congress in its decision-making?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo, it says here and shall make
possible. So, how can it retract or reduce? It shall make possible as may be
provided by
law. In other words, the law will just provide the corresponding mechanism
but it has to make possible all that has been stated here in this body.
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the Chair. Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Ople has graciously withdrawn
his last amendment. So, there are no more provisions or sections here to be
voted on.
But before I ask for the termination of the period of amendments, may I ask
that we insert in the Record a speech of Commissioner Tingson, entitled:
Land
Reform, Pillar of Economic Recovery, which is a comment and an
observation on the section that we have.
motion is approved. **
Please furnish a copy to the Secretariat.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, I will, Madam President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: So, are we through now with the Article on Social Justice?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, before I move to terminate the period of
amendments, I would like to register the reservation of Commissioner Jamir
to amend
Section 5 and Commissioner Foz to amend Section 11.
With those reservations, Madam President, I move that we close the period of
amendments on the Article on Social Justice.
FR. BERNAS: I would also like to reserve an amendment on Section 20. That
is the very last one.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Bernas would like to make a reservation on Section
20.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, just a small point.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to make the manifestation that Commissioner de
los Reyes was consulted in the drafting of the section on the rights of fish
workers
which included the phrase service workers and other forms of contractual
relationship. That is just for purposes of drafting it, the styling.
MR. RAMA: With those reservations, Madam President, I move that we close
the period of amendments on the Article on Social Justice.
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move adjourn until Monday at nine-thirty in

the morning.
morning.
It was 1:36 p.m.
Footnotes:
* See Appendix.
** See Appendix.
R.C.C. NO. 53
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Jose D. Calderon.
PRAYER
MR. CALDERON: Let us pray.
Almighty God, we are entering the final phase of our task to draft what will
become the fundamental law of the Filipino people.
The last two months had been hectic but the days ahead will be even more
demanding.
Even now, strenuous and sustained effort has taken its toll among those of
us who are not in excellent health nor of robust physical attributes.
But, Almighty God, the few of us who had been stricken ill are, by Your Grace,
holding on tenaciously to the job at hand, pushed on by a determination and
a purpose single to the completion of this endeavor, together with our more
physically able colleagues.
As our work intensifies, as the demands on our efforts grow heavier, give us,
O Lord, the strength to carry on. Reenergize our bodies; give more light to
our minds; put more love in our hearts; and grant us more understanding
and sympathy for those views that contradict our own.
As crucial issues are submitted to a vote, fortify us, Almighty God, with
humility in victory, with grace in defeat, and with the wisdom to understand
that
every vote cast in this Chamber is a vote of conscience in tended to achieve
the common weal and certainly not a partisan stand designed to defeat a
foe,
for in this Chamber, O Lord, there are no foes, only colleagues in the
common endeavor to structure the foundation of this nation.
Guide us, Almighty God, in these, the final days, to make the Constitution we
are drafting one that is acceptable to our people but, more importantly, one
that is deserving of Your blessing and benediction. Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present*
Brocka
Absent
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present*
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present*
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present*

motion
is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
previous session.
motion is approved.

of Business.
motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Teodoro Pascua of Konsiyensiya ng Febrero Siete (KONFES), 4
Malinis St., UP Village, Diliman, Quezon City, submitting its proposal for the
retention of the text of Section 8, Article XV of the 1973 Constitution
regarding religious instruction in public elementary and high schools.
Letter from Mr. Saturnino C. Aro of 12-A Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet,
requesting inclusion of provisions on social security to make small
member-employers beneficiaries by way of benefit payments in times of
sickness, disability, retirement and death.
Letter from Mr. Jaime A. Tabang of 216 M.L. Quezon St., Magiliw, Mabalacat,
Pampanga, seeking a constitutional provision that would, in effect, make the
bar examinees with borderline marks become members of the bar provided
they have proven to be competent in fields directly related to the legal
profession.
Letter from Mr. Jaime A Tabang of 216 M.L St., Magiliw, Mabalacat,
Pampanga, saying that civilian employees of the AFP remain casuals in
spite of their
civil service eligibilities and length of service and suggesting the inclusion of
provisions providing equal treatment of all government employees
regardless of the agency hiring them.
To the Committee on Constitutional Commission and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Jose C. de Venecia, Jr., President of the Petroleum Association
of the Philippines, 1 Floor Basic Petroleum Bldg., Alvarado St., Legaspi
Village, Makati, Metro Manila, containing the position of the association on
the exploration and development of petroleum resources of the Philippines.
Twenty-seven letters from John Gerard R. de Dios, Edwin F. Sarmiento, Eric S.
Javier, Anmiel P. Galvo, Joselito Ledesma, Terry A. Lafigura, Rosario Torres,
William Intalco, Rojiel S. Lacanienta, Clifford E. Pesalbon, Joselito S. Agbayani,
Romeo V. Paragas, Marlyn Sarmiento, Aurora R. Guiang, Francis G. Bais,
Ramil T. Bruces, Ricky Paglicawan, Luis S. Salazar, Margarita R. Mangaliman,
Victor Maricad, Rolando T. Nepomuceno, Jesus M. Pinlac, Marita Malpaya,
Zenaida B. Viray, Reynaldo N. Regresado, Anselmo V. Contreras, and Ernesto
C. Esteban, Jr. with their respective addresses, all seeking to include in the
Constitution a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn
Principles.
Resolution No. 6 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, requesting
the Commission to respect the six-year term given by the people to the
incumbent
President and Vice-President.
Communication from the Philippine Social Science Council, Inc., Don Mariano
Marcos Avenue, UP Diliman, Quezon City, signed by its Chairman, Dr.
Carolina G.
Hernandez, submitting four recommendations, to wit: (1) federal form of
government composed of 12 autonomous regions; (2) equal rights of women

with men
and protection of working women in relation to their maternal functions; (3)
deletion of the second sentence in the Article on Bill of Rights, Section 1
(the right to life extends to the fertilized ovum); (4) addition of a ninth ray to
the sun of the Philippine flag to represent the Muslim and cultural
communities.
Letter from Mr. Wilfredo C. Asuncion of Batac, Ilocos Norte, proposing, among
others, a presidential form of government with a bicameral legislature, a
six-year term for the President with no reelection, creation of a Commission
on Appointments, and a four-year tenure for the Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces.
Letter from Mr. Ricaredo G. Sodusta of Loreto, Agusan del Sur, transmitting
Resolution No. 06, S.1986 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Loreto, requesting
the
Constitutional Commission to create a Ministry for Tribal Filipinos that will
cover all cultural minority tribes of the country.
Communication from Imelda S. Dasalla of No. 117 Block 2, New Matina,
Davao City, and 84 others urging the Constitutional Commission to draft a
Constitution
for a Federal Republic of Pilipinas.
MR. RAMA: There is a request for a privilege speech for two minutes on the
occasion of the birthday of former Senator Lorenzo Taada. May I ask that
Commissioner Villacorta be recognized.
THE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
OF COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, as we are about to approve the Article
on Social Justice, the significance of the conferment of the highest
government
award, the Legion of Honor, Rank of Commander, to former Senator Lorenzo
Martinez Taada, should not pass unnoticed by the Constitutional
Commission.
Former Senator Taada as we all know, is one of the greatest Filipinos of our
time. Since the start of his public career, he has fought for the small
people of our society. Always championing basic human rights and national
sovereignty, he has battled the forces of tyranny and foreign domination.
Even as he has advanced to the age of 88, he has been unwavering in his
social consciousness, his incorruptibility and his commitment to freedom and
nationalism. Instead of stagnating in the premises and biases of his
generation, he has always been attuned and responsive to the dynamic
demands of
changing times.
Senator Taada has often said, Life is too short, we have to do our best for
our people before we are summoned by our Creator and are made to account
for
our actions in our lifetime. We are fortunate that in this Constitutional
Commission, we can benefit from the parallel wisdom of his contemporaries
in
lawmaking: Senators Sumulong, Alonto, Rodrigo, Padilla and Rosales, and
Speaker Laurel statesmen of an era when the values of delicadeza and
selflessness
in public life prevailed.
In our work in this Commission, we have endeavored to provide for the
prevention of tyrannys resurgence in our country. We have also striven to
enshrine
peoples power through the institutionalization of sectoral representation and
peoples organizations, and have sought to protect and guarantee the rights
of laborers, farmers, fishermen, women, youth, the middle class, the sick and
the disabled in our Article on Social Justice. Soon we shall deliberate on

the matter of giving local governments the importance that they deserve,
and on articles that will set our people free from foreign economic, cultural
and
political encroachment. Let us draw our inspiration from the exemplary
example of our great nationalist, Senator Lorenzo Taada, who yesterday
said that
his only birthday wish is to see our country truly liberated from foreign
domination before I die.
Madam President, I would like, therefore, to exhort our colleagues in the
Commission to support a resolution, that this Representation will submit,
congratulating Senator Taada for the highest state honor that he has just
received.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: I move that we take up for consideration Committee Report Nos.
21 and 25 on the Article on Local Governments, submitted by the Committee
on Local
Governments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we proceed to consider the
reports of the Committee on Local Governments?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I thought we would proceed to finish the
amendments to the report of the Committee on Social Justice before we take
up
Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 because Commissioner Ople, who is one of
the sponsors, has not yet arrived.
It was 9:59 a.m.

CONSIDERATION OF
Continuation
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the Committee on Social Justice is now ready to
entertain the motion for reconsideration. I ask that Commissioner Jamir be
recognized.
I move to reconsider the approval of the second sentence of Section 5,
appearing on page 2 of the draft, to enable me to add the words: EXCEPT
COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL after the phrase all agricultural lands.
motion is approved.
Commissioner Suarez is recognized
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we hear the proposed amendment
again from the distinguished Gentleman?
MR. JAMIR: After the phrase all agricultural lands, I move to insert the
words: EXCEPT COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, before the clause subject to such
priorities.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, we realize the merit of the proposal, but this
has been repeatedly stated in the explanation given by the members of the
Committee, so we would rather that we leave this matter to the floor for
appreciation.
MR. DAVIDE: Will the distinguished proponent yield to some clarificatory
questions so we can vote intelligently?
MR. JAMIR: Willingly.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposed Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony, land should be classified into timber, mineral, national park, and
agricultural. If this particular proposal is adopted, all lands may further, be
classified into residential, commercial, agricultural and so on.
MR. JAMIR: The term COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LANDS
is merely part of the broader term agricultural lands.
MR. DAVIDE: Consequently, Congress now may classify all agricultural
lands as residential, commercial and so on, or the bigger portion of the
agricultural land as commercial or residential, to defeat the purpose of the
concept of agrarian land reform.
MR. JAMIR: No, Madam President. This is preceded by the word EXCEPT. That
means to say that with regard to the broad term agricultural lands, these
are
the only exceptions.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. But Congress may now classify what are agricultural,
residential and commercial lands, thus reducing the area or the coverage of
agricultural lands and what may be available for land reform.
MR. JAMIR: I do not really think so.
MR. DAVIDE: We submit that it might dilute further the concept of land
reform.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bernas be
recognized.

FR. BERNAS: Will the proponent entertain a few questions?
FR. BERNAS: In proposing to exempt agricultural, commercial and residential
lands, would that not affect the intent of the former Section 11, which is now
Section 10, on urban land use? In the course of our deliberations on this
section on urban land reform and housing, we deliberately used the word
reform
and not use so that it would involve not merely zoning. It was very clear
that the intent was to make possible the expropriation of urban land,
residential land and even commercial land for purposes of distribution and
resale. If we exempt commercial and residential lands from distribution under
Section 5, in effect, we negate the possibility of urban land reform.
MR. JAMIR: My purpose in introducing that amendment is merely to clarify
that, under existing laws and our jurisprudence, these three kinds of
agricultural
lands really form part of the agricultural lands but they are considered an
exception to that broader term.
FR. BERNAS: But, precisely, the intention of the Article on Social Justice is to
go beyond existing law. And now, the purpose of the Gentlemans
amendment
is to fossilize the existing law, and thereby render impossible the fulfillment
of the goals of urban land reform.
MR. JAMIR: That was not the intention. In fact, if I remember correctly, during
the interpellation, when I was attempting to insert the word ARABLE
between the words all and agriculture, the Committee stated that
commercial, industrial and residential lands are not really included. I would
like to
clarify that.
FR. BERNAS: That, of course, is correct. But then subsequent to that we
considered urban land reform. The proper consideration of commercial and
residential lands should be perhaps under urban land reform and housing.
MR. JAMIR: It is far beyond my intention to limit the coverage of agrarian land
reform.
FR. BERNAS: It may not be the intention, Madam President, but it is the
effect.
MR. JAMIR: I really do not think so, because at any rate, our laws and
jurisprudence already have instituted these as parts merely of agricultural
lands.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, it is still my contention that the introduction
of that amendment will seriously impair, if not negate, the possibility of
urban land reform and housing reform.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I suggest that we submit it to a vote.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, this Commission has been castigated by
various farmer groups for instituting a weak agrarian reform program. The
Federation
of Free Farmers and other nationwide peasant groups have issued
statements criticizing this Commission for instituting a weak and flabby
agrarian reform
program. Madam President, now we are introducing another amendment to
further weaken the agrarian reform. A few days ago, we instituted
amendments that
tend to weaken agrarian reform with provisions like the State shall by law;
subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as Congress may
prescribe; the proviso taking into account ecological, developmental or
equity consideration; and just compensation.
Madam President, to me this is another attempt to weaken agrarian reform.
We will be increasing the sorrow and the sadness of our farmers, of our
people,
if we accept this amendment. With due respect to Commissioner Jamir, I
object to the introduction of that amendment.
MR. PADILLA: The proposed amendment submitted by Commissioner Jamir
has reference to Section 5 under agrarian land reform. The proposed
amendment does not
refer to Section 10 or 11 under Urban Land Use and Housing Program, so
they are two distinct sections. For Commissioner Bernas to say that
Commissioner
Jamirs insertion in Section 5 will affect the provision on urban land use and
housing is not exactly accurate because the proposed amendment is on
Section
5 and not on Section 10 or 11. With regard to the provision that says
encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, I
recall
that I suggested the elimination of the word all and Commissioner Jamir
suggested to make it applicable to ARABLE agricultural lands. These
proposals
were unfortunately not approved. But definitely this sub-classification of
agricultural land to residential, commercial and industrial is not or should not
be covered by agrarian land reform.
So I am in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Jamir.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I just inform the honorable Commission that under
Article XIV, Section 10 of the 1973 Constitution, lands of the public domain
are
classified into agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement,
mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands, and such other classes as
may be provided by law. Unless the intention of the Committee on the
National Economy and Patrimony is to do away with this classification which I
think is
a good classification, then there should be no question about the
amendment being proposed by Commissioner Jamir because it is so
classified under the 1973
Constitution.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the proponent yield to some questions?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, there is settled jurisprudence on the
definition of agricultural land in the case of Krivenco vs. the Register of
Deeds that
would define agricultural land to include commercial, industrial and
residential lands. My concern is in the absence of settled jurisprudence
delimiting
the parameters of what are commercial, industrial and residential lands

which, in effect, would get in the way of the effective implementation of
Sections
5 and 11.
For the enlightenment of the Committee, what does Commissioner Jamir
intend to cover by reference to commercial, industrial and residential lands,
if only
to set the parameters of these concepts and classification; otherwise we
would be, in effect, granting to Congress the plenary powers and statutory
authority to set their own classification in the absence of guidance from
jurisprudence and the law.
MR. JAMIR: I know that commercial, industrial and residential lands are
included in the broad term agricultural lands, but considering the particular
character of these parcels of land, they should not be included in the land
subject to agrarian reform. They should be allowed to remain commercial for
commercial purposes, industrial for industrial purposes, and residential for
residential purposes. That is my contention.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, in answer to the question asked by
Commissioner de los Reyes, it is the intent of the Committee on the National
Economy and
Patrimony to remove many of the categories that were mentioned in the
1973 Constitution. As I reported on another occasion, our recommendation in
the
committee report is to have only four classifications; namely mineral, timber,
agricultural, and if the body approves it, the new classification of
national parks. The background behind this recommendation is that in the
last regime, the government was very free in reclassifying all types of
agricultural lands into residential and resettlement, and we felt that we
should limit that ability of Congress or the executive. I would really be
hesitant to introduce that exception because there are a lot of rural areas
right now where we can actually have industrial and residential and
commercial
activities I think we should just depend on the wisdom of Congress to
consider developmental or equity consideration so that we need not
completely tie
the hands of the government in considering some rural areas that can be
subject to land reform even if some people may want to introduce land
reform in
specific rural sites.
I do object to the amendment. I think it will unduly limit the ability of the
government to introduce land reform in specific rural sites.
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I am a member of the Committee and I
would like to state here what the intent of the Committee was when it
proposed the urban
land reform and housing and agrarian land reform. When we discussed this
provision on urban land reform and housing, what we had in mind were the
urban
poor-people who have no houses, who are landless, who are not professional
squatters, but are squatting on idle lands in the city, who have been there for
many years, and people who have gotten into these idle lands, paying
certain nominal amounts to the landowners. We were not thinking of the
office spaces,
for example, in Makati.
I appreciate the concern of Commissioner Jamir and I understand that what
he has in mind and his apprehension is that this might cover lands which are
definitely and publicly known to be office spaces or commercial spaces.
However, that apprehension is already eased by the last portion of Section 5
which
has given Congress the prerogative to prescribe certain terms, taking into
account the ecological, developmental and equity considerations When it
passes
laws on agrarian reform and urban reform. And, therefore, in order not to
complicate the matter further, considering that the apprehension of
Commissioner
Jamir is taken care of by the last portion of Section 5, and reading into the
record the intent of the Committee when it proposed the section on urban
land
reform and housing to the effect that it was really the intention not to cover
these office spaces and industrial sites but those lands which are in the
cities and in the urban areas which are idle, which could properly be
expropriated by the government for tenement housing, then we believe,
Madam
President, that there is no need for that amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there has been sufficient debate and discussion
of the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know from Commissioner Jamir if he insists on his

amendment so that we can determine, if he will submit it to a vote.
MR. JAMIR: Yes, Madam President. I wish to submit it to a vote.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, before we vote on the issue, may I just
ask the Committee one clarificatory question.
MR. SARMIENTO: A few seconds ago, Commissioner Bengzon stated that
industrial sites are exempted from the scope of urban land reform. May I
know if it is
the intention of the Committee for the urban land reform to cover only idle
lands in the city?
It was 10:30 a.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Colayco would like to have the
last say on the proposed amendment.
According to Commissioner Bengzon, the Committee understands or agrees
that areas devoted to commercial or industrial purposes are not to be
included in
the agrarian and urban reform. Am I correct?
MR. BENGZON: Yes. Areas which are already being used for commercial and
industrial sites are not included in this definition because the intent of the
Committee was to take care of the urban poor, the homeless. For example, if
there is a specific area already devoted to industrial purposes and with
factories all around, but within that cluster of factories there is a vacant land,
it is up to Congress now to determine whether for the interest of the
community that land should be expropriated wherein a tenement housing
will be built for the workers around.
So, what is wrong with clarifying that point?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we will get into a lot of complications
because there will be a million and one situations like that.
MR. COLAYCO: There will be more complications, if we do not clarify this
point.
MR. BENGZON: Congress has the right to reclassify those lands as the
circumstances would warrant. We cannot put all of those restrictions here.
MR. COLAYCO: There is just this problem there may be a situation where
an industrial or commercial area is not being used at the moment. This can
be a
big problem if Congress now declares such an area as residential or for urban
housing.
MR. BENGZON: Then if Congress declares so, that means that it is for the
best interest of everybody concerned, and it is not for us here to tell them
what
to do.
MR. COLAYCO: I have another question. There are many vacant residential
areas around the elite enclaves, the subdivisions in Metro Manila. Take the
case of
the Ortigas property which is supposed to have been taken over by the
Marcoses. There was a time when there were many squatters in that area.
Does the
Committee envision the expropriation of similar areas for housing for the
poor?
MR. BENGZON: We do not envision any situation of that sort. We are leaving
it precisely to Congress to determine whether or not, given that particular
situation, it would enhance the value of that land or the interest of the
squatters to stay in that particular area. That is why I am saying that we
leave
the discretion to Congress to decide what is best for the community as a
whole, both for the people who would want to squat there and cut up that
piece of
land into small pieces for themselves, and for the people who are already
living around that community. It is not up for us to dictate to them what to do
nor to envision every single situation. That is why we are leaving the matter
to Congress. We feel that if we do include all the proposals of
Commissioner Jamir here, we are complicating the situation further. The
more we define, the more we limit, and the more we tie the hands of
Congress.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you for the Gentlemans view.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the body is ready to vote on the proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Villegas want to seek recognition?
MR. VILLEGAS: I just wanted to add some information that would allay the
fears expressed by Commissioner Colayco.
MR. VILLEGAS: Let us take, for example, that very specific case of the Ortigas
land. It would be highly unlikely for Congress to consider the area for
urban land reform because the price of that land is more than P1,000 per
square meter. And because we have a very specific statement about just
compensation, it would not be wise for the government to choose a property
right in the middle of the Ortigas area. I think we will have to put all these
provisions in the context of what we also approved just compensation. So,
I do not think there is reason to be apprehensive, assuming that Congress
really represents the people. We should have enough confidence in our
government officials.
THE PRESIDENT: We are ready to vote now.
MR. RAMA: The Committee would like to state its position.
In view of the many explanations given on record regarding the
interpretation of the word agricultural lands in relation to the
implementation to the
urban land reform program of the government together with the agrarian
reform, the Committee feels that there is no necessity for the inclusion of the
three items mentioned by the proponent. However, if the Gentleman insists,

we will leave it to the body to appreciate and evaluate the situation.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, may I say one word?
MR. JAMIR: In view of the statement of Commissioner Suarez, may I just ask
him, if I withdraw this amendment, whether his explanation given during the
interpellation the other time on my proposal to add the word arable is the
Committees stand on the matter? If the Gentleman would like to recall, he
stated that the term commercial, industrial and residential lands is not
included under agricultural lands.
MR. SUAREZ: Essentially, the characteristic of arability is the controlling
factor, insofar as the classification of agrarian reform on agricultural lands
is concerned.
MR. JAMIR: So, that explanation of the Gentleman will stand; in that event,
Madam President, I withdraw the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment is withdrawn.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized for
another amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized
MR. FOZ: Madam President, before I actually state my proposed amendment,
I would like to make some statements in response to certain statements
expressed
in some quarters. I wish to respond to the statements expressing fears and
misgivings over the consequences of our provision on urban land reform
which we
have approved as part of the Article on Social Justice and which the
government is called upon to carry out when the new Constitution is
approved. These
fears and apprehensions, I submit, arise from a lack of appreciation of the
proper role of an urban land reform program.
The objectives of an urban land program, as I have mentioned them before,
are to liberate our human communities from blight, congestion and hazard,
and to
promote their development and modernization to bring about the optimum
use of land as a rational resource for public welfare, rather than as a

commodity of
trade subject to price speculation and indiscriminate use; and to acquire
lands necessary to prevent the speculative buying of land for public welfare;
and
to enlist the support of the private sector in responding to community
requirements in the use and development of urban lands and in providing
housing for
the people. The foremost concern then is the problem of blighted, congested
urban areas or communities. Our provision precisely states that it is a
program
of urban land reform and housing, aimed at making available affordable
housing and basic services to the underprivileged and homeless citizens.
The fear has been expressed by small landowners or small property owners,
who have two-door or more apartments being rented out to tenants, that the
government would take over their property. This concern is not new because
time and again, small apartment owners who, by the way, are numerous
have been
voicing the same fear but I say that there is no ground for such fear. The
government will certainly be concerned with the big estates and properties in
urban centers; and under well-developed jurisprudence, the State is to be
limited to this type of land insofar as government expropriation of land is
concerned.
If we have provided in the provision on agrarian reform an assurance to the
small landowners that the State shall respect their rights in determining the
retention limits of agricultural lands, should we not likewise provide even a
short provision in the case of small urban landowners that their rights shall
also be respected and protected by the State? These small landowners or
property owners may be said to belong to the middle class of our urban
centers.
They are retirees, veterans, teachers, employees, who have used their
lifetime savings or have borrowed from banks small loans to build houses or
even
small apartments, a portion of which they have rented out to some other
people so that they can derive some income when they retire or even during
their
retirement.
Therefore, Madam President, I propose that we add to Section 11, which we
have already approved, a new sentence to read as follows: THE STATE SHALL
RESPECT
THE RIGHTS OF SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS. This amendment is coauthored
by Commissioners Monsod and Treas. By the way, this has already been
cleared with the

Committee.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we just clarify two points: When the
Gentleman mentioned property owners, was he referring to owners of lots
and houses or
only to lots?
MR. FOZ: Both.
MR. SUAREZ: And would the Gentleman leave to Congress, as we did in
applying the provisions on agrarian reform, the determination of what would
constitute
a small property owner?
The Committee accepts the proposed amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee accepts.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. VILLEGAS: Could I just propose an amendment to the amendment. Since
property is too general, could we introduce an adjective and say: REAL
ESTATE
PROPERTY OWNERS?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Foz or the Committee say?
MR. FOZ: I think there is no difference. Actually, it is a little redundant to say
SMALL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS here.
MR. SUAREZ: Would Commissioner Villegas state the proposed amendment
to the amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF SMALL REAL
ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS.
MR. SUAREZ: Would the word PROPERTY not be included in the words
REAL ESTATE?
MR. VILLEGAS: No.
MR. SUAREZ: It is the other way around.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: This sentence is proposed to be included in the same section
defining the rights of farmers to urban land reform and housing. So in that
context, it would only refer to real property.
MR. VILLEGAS: I will not insist on the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman now restate the proposed amendment
so that we can proceed to vote.
MR. FOZ: If I may read the sentence: THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE
RIGHTS OF SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS.
MR. SUAREZ: We reiterate the Committee accepts the proposed amendment.
amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we take a vote on the entire
Section 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are we through with all the reservations? Have we
taken up all the reserved amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: One more reservation, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we take that up now?
MR. RAMA: We can take it up now. May I ask that Commissioner Bernas be
recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I call the attention of the Commission to the
third paragraph, page 38 of the Journal last Saturday. The amendment I am
about
to propose is in effect cosponsored by Commissioners Monsod, Garcia and
also Commissioner Regalado who gave the last amendment to this provision
last
Saturday.
Before I state my amendment, let me just give the background of what I am
about to propose. In the interpellation made by Commissioner Rodrigo last
Saturday, it was made very clear that it was not the intention of this
provision to in any way dilute or diminish the rights already guaranteed in
the Bill
of Rights, particularly Section 7 and Section 9, which guarantee the right of
people to form associations and unions for purposes not contrary to law, and
also the guarantee which says that no law shall be passed abridging the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress
of grievances.
So the object of my proposal is precisely to rephrase this so that it will not be
read as diminishing what we already have; and at the same time it will
more clearly project what we hope to add in this provision.
My amendment has two parts. The first involves a splitting of the sentence
into two, and then a rewording of both parts. I propose to delete the first four
words The State shall respect, and I shall begin the provision this way: THE
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO EFFECTIVE AND
REASONABLE
PARTICIPATION AT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED. And then a new sentence will
follow: THE STATE SHALL
FACILITATE THE CREATION OF ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.
After consultation with the Committee and also with Commissioner Regalado
who sponsored the last amendment, we agreed that this formulation reflects
the
intention of everyone.
MR. GASCON: Commissioner Bernas, is it not STATE SHALL, BY LAW,
FACILITATE?
FR. BERNAS: THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW FACILITATE THE CREATION OF
ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.
We would like to avoid the use of the words make possible because it gives
the impression that these consultation mechanisms are not possible unless
the
State takes action by law. As a matter of fact, the consultation mechanisms
are already in existence, and the role we are giving to the State is mere
facilitation, not necessarily creation of these consultation mechanisms.
MR. SUAREZ: Since the proposed amendment would be reflective of the
thinking of the Committee the Committee decides to accept the proposals,
Madam
President.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to have some clarifications.
MR. DAVIDE: The emphasis of my question will be on THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS THEIR ORGANIZATIONS would refer specifically to
independent peoples
organizations as defined in the preceding sentence.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the Gentleman agree to using the word ESTABLISHMENT
instead of CREATION?
FR. BERNAS: That is with respect to the second sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, to the second sentence.
FR. BERNAS: The sense is the same; I would have difficulty with that.
FR. BERNAS: But for me the more important word is FACILITATE.
MR. SUAREZ: Is Commissioner Bernas accepting the amendment?
MR. MONSOD: May I just ask a question of the proponent, Madam President.
Would it change the sense of the sentence if we simply say, THE STATE
SHALL FACILITATE ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS without having
to say CREATION
OR ESTABLISHMENT?
FR. BERNAS: First of all, the phrase is THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW.
MR. MONSOD: THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILITATE ADEQUATE
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS. Do we need the word CREATION there?
FR. BERNAS: There are ready two steps. First, we have the creation of the
consultation mechanisms, and then the facilitation of the functioning of
those
mechanisms.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a new section or substitution for a section?
FR. BERNAS; A substitution for Section 20, Madam President. So, the first
sentence will read: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS
TO EFFECTIVE
AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION AT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.
Could we take action on that?
THE PRESIDENT: There are two sentences.
FR. BERNAS: There is a second sentence, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this clear to all the Commissioners?
I am for this amendment which I think better reflects the intent of the entire
Commission, if I may say so. But for the purpose of the records, we should
clarify the meaning of the word PEOPLE DO we refer to the people as the
source of sovereignty from which all sovereignty emanates?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, yes.
MR. OPLE: I think in the usual construction, the people in this case constitute
themselves into an electorate for the purpose of electing a government to
pass policy questions through their representatives in, let us say, the
legislature. But in this case we refer to people and their organizations. Is
there
no distinction at all between the people contemplated in the earlier
definition that I gave from which all sovereignty emanates and the people
here as,
let us say, the people as a great public?
FR. BERNAS: The people are larger than just merely the electorate because
the electorate consists of those who are qualified to vote. The broader word
PEOPLE would include even those who are under age, and the guarantee in
the Bill of Rights covers all people.
MR. OPLE: We are speaking, therefore, of people in the more generic sense.
Perhaps, the classic formulation of that was what Walter Lippman put forth as
a
national society consisting of generations present, past and future, as well.
FR. BERNAS: Yes; and that adequately defines the section on the declaration
of principles when we speak of sovereignty residing in the people.
MR. OPLE: In empowering peoples organizations to participate in all levels of
decision-making, this presumably rises vertically from, let us say, the
barangay level to the regional level and to the national level.
FR. BERNAS: We are not putting any limitation.
MR. OPLE: I just wanted to make this clarification.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, before we vote, I would like to ask the
Committee a question.
MR. ROMULO: Since this now has been reformulated, I would like to ask, in
the event the peoples organization is not consulted, what the effect of that
nonconsultation with regard to either the decision made by the bureaucrats
or the law passed by Congress would be.
MR. GARCIA: The Committee feels that in any decision-making that will be
relevant, the thoughts, the aspirations and the participation of people are
essential for the decision-making to be in the right direction.
MR. ROMULO: Granted, but suppose they are not consulted?

MR. GARCIA: Yes, we always say that consultation mechanisms be reasonable
because one cannot consult every single individual on a specific question.
But
the effort of decision-makers or of government leaders should be to consult
the people, whenever it is possible.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. Assuming that they do not, I just want to know what is the
effect of nonconsultation.
MR. GARCIA: Then they must suffer the consequences. When the people later
on believe that the decisions made without proper consultation are contrary
to
their interests, then they may be voted out of office.
MR. ROMULO: So, it does not nullify the law or it does not make the decision
nonenforceable.
MR. GARCIA: Exactly. There are many levels on the arenas of participation. It
can be electoral. It can be, as in the past when we saw street
manifestations, in the form of demonstrations. And right now, in many parts
q of the country, especially during the public hearings, we hold dialogues
with
the people. In fact, such has been instituted in the different ministries as I
informed you the other time.
MR. ROMULO: My second question is, since we speak of the different levels of
participation, not only political but social, economic and so on, to what
extent does this apply in the ladder of decision-making?
MR. GARCIA: The desired objective is for people on the local level, provincial
level, regional level and national level to be consulted so that there will
be an effective mechanism, so that we can check whether the decisions
made on all levels are relevant and responsive to peoples needs.
MR. ROMULO: So, if we take an agency of the government, let us say a
ministry on the national level, do we require that the people be consulted
from the
bottom to top of that ladder of decision-making?
MR. GARCIA: There are, for example, national organizations. But I would like
to give a very concrete example. The Ministry of Health, for example,
conducted a consultation with different national organizations composed of
health workers, consumers, doctors, and so on, on the national level. And
later
on, for the decisions to be implemented, the Ministry discussed further and
refined these. There were consultations in the local and municipal levels. So
there are many levels. The level may be vertical on that score
geographical or horizontal when it involves different sectors of society,
multisectoral or
sectoral.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, this section does not say that any group
who claims to be a peoples organization must be consulted for a law or
decision to
be valid or implemented. As I think Commissioner Garcia said, there is the
criteria of practicability as well. Furthermore, in our Constitution, we also
gave the people the right of initiative and referendum.
MR. ROMULO: Precisely.
MR. MONSOD: So, this is another way by which they can express their
disapproval of any decision or law.
MR. ROMULO: So, what the Gentleman is saying is that this is a desired
objective and if it is not fulfilled then the people must go to those
mechanisms
provided in our Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, the operative phrase is WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC
FRAMEWORK.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask a few questions?
MR. RODRIGO: The phrase WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK is a little
too general. In our Declaration of Principles, we state that our government is
a
republican government, which means a representative government wherein
sovereignty resides in the people; but then the people elect their
representatives
to the legislature, to the executive department, and these representatives
are the ones who perform the functions of government. We would like the
people
to have some reserve powers as was stated by Commissioner Monsod. We
are providing for initiative, for referendum, even for recall. And now, we are
providing in this proposed section another direct participation of the people.
What is the meaning of this participation. It seems that this
participation should not be initiated by the government, but by the people

themselves or by organizations. If the organizations want to participate, they
should not wait for the government, let us say, for the legislature, to invite
them or to consult them.
MR. GARCIA: We agree.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the legislative department does not have the duty to call
them and say, please come, we want to consult you. If the people do not
go
there and express their views . . .
MR. GARCIA: Precisely, when we were explaining the role and rights of
peoples organizations, we are saying that it will be the people, their
organizations, which are involved. They should not see their participation in
government stopping when they cast their vote; it goes beyond electoral
politics. The only thing we are asking for in this section is to facilitate a
consultation mechanism so that there is a more recognized effort, a more
visible and viable effort, so that this consultation mechanism is
institutionalized.
MR. RODRIGO: So, it is very, very clear that we do not want to depart from a
republican form of government, which means a representative form of
government. We want more people participation and the participation should
come from the people.
MR. GARCIA: Exactly. In fact, it strengthens the democratic exercise.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to strengthen the position of Commissioner
Garcia and Commissioner Monsod with respect to the framework within
which peoples
organizations participate. In addition to the democratic framework, we are
saying that it is in the pursuit of social justice. That is why we were
insistent on the original formulation that the provision on peoples
organizations should start with the introduction, In the pursuit of Social
Justice
within the democratic framework, so that we get out of the framework of
party politics. It is not just within the framework of party politics that
peoples organizations can participate. We have had a number of
experiences where peoples organizations have already been participating at
various levels.
A concrete example would be the construction of huge infrastructure projects
like dams. It has been the case that some form of consultation takes place
but
in the final implementation of these programs, the consultations are not
conducted. We are saying that the people should be able to initiate from the
lowest, as it were, up to the highest level, if necessary, so their voices will be
heard effectively.
Again based on our experiences, in a number of cases, there is lack of
adequate information. Information is never provided for the people on which
to base
their judgment on these infrastructure projects. We are also saying therefore,
that given this framework, social justice and the democratic values could be
pursued, peoples participation could be more effective, and the role of
government here would be to facilitate that form of consultation outside of
party
politics.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Bernas would like to have his
last say on this.
FR. BERNAS: No, I was asking for a vote. But if the Chair wishes, I can restate
the amendment.
MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Committee please read the section now?
MR. SUAREZ: We yield to Commissioner Bernas, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: The section will read: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS TO EFFECTIVE AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION AT ALL
LEVELS OF SOCIAL,
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED. THE
STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILITATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADEQUATE
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise
hand.)
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we vote on the whole Article on
Social Justice, as suggested by one of the committee members.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Floor Leader, have all those reserved amendments been
submitted already?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President. There are no more reserved amendments.
MR. MONSOD: May we request that we first distribute to the Commissioners a
clean copy of the Article before we vote on Second Reading?
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will vote on it later as soon as we have a clean copy
of the entire Article on Social Justice with all the amendments that have been
approved.
Meanwhile, the Chair suspends the session for a few minutes.
It was 11:15 a.m.
MR. RAMA: I move that we suspend the session until two oclock this
afternoon to listen to the sponsorship of the Committee on Local
Governments.
session is suspended until two oclock in the afternoon.
It was 11:51 a.m.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NOS. 470 AND 511
(Article on Local Governments and
Additional Provisions Thereto)
MR. RAMA: I move that we consider Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on
Proposed Resolution Nos. 470 and 511 as reported out by the Committee on
Local
Governments.
motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution Nos. 470 and 511 is now in order. With
the permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of
the proposed resolutions without prejudice to inserting in the Record the
whole text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 470, entitled.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN
ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
and Proposed Resolution No. 51 1, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ADDITIONAL

PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
(The following is the whole text of the proposed resolutions per CR Nos. 21
and 25.)
The Committee on Local Governments to which were referred Proposed
Resolution No. 182, introduced by Honorable Tingson, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS,
Proposed Resolution No. 329, introduced by Honorable Tingson entitled:
RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE BARANGAYS TO RETAIN A
PORTION OF TAXES AND OTHER REVENUES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
PURPOSES,
Proposed Resolution No. 361, introduced by Honorable Treas, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION A NEW
PROVISION EMPOWERING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO LEVY AND COLLECT
TAXES UNIQUE, DISTINCT AND EXCLUSIVE TO
THEM AND TO SPEND THE REVENUES RAISED THEREFROM IN ORDER TO
MAKE LOCAL AUTONOMY REALLY MEANINGFUL AND EFFECTIVE,
Proposed
ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 182, 329 and 361
with Honorable Nolledo, Calderon, Tingson, Rosales, Alonto, de Castro,
Bennagen,
Rigos, Regalado, Jamir and Ople as authors.
Respectfully submitted:
(Sgd.) Jose N. Nolledo
Chairman
Committee on Local Governments

ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
session assembled, to incorporate the following Article on Local
Governments:
ARTICLE _____
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SECTION 1. The provinces, cities, municipalities, barrios and the autonomous
regions are the territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the
Philippines.
SECTION 2. Legislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral
representation as may be prescribed by law.
SECTION 3. No autonomous region, province, city, municipality, pr barrio may
be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered,
except in accordance with criteria established by law and subject to approval
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the
unit or units directly affected.
SECTION 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over local governments to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed.
SECTION 5. Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly
beneficial
to them.
SECTION 6. Each government unit shall have the power to create its own
sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such
guidelines as
may be fixed by law.
SECTION 7. Local governments shall have the power to levy and collect
charges or contributions unique, distinct and exclusive to them.
SECTION 8. Local taxes shall belong exclusively to local governments and

they shall likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation
and
development of the national wealth within their respective areas. The share
of local governments in the national taxes shall be released to them
automatically.
The Committee on Local Governments to which were referred Proposed
Resolution No. 15, introduced by Honorable de los Reyes, Jr. and Maambong,
entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WHICH WILL
ASSURE RECOGNITION OF THE CORDILLERA REGION, PREVENT ITS FUTURE
DISMEMBERMENT AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES,
Proposed Resolution No. 17, introduced by Honorable Azcuna, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS,
Proposed Resolution No. 138, introduced by Honorable Nolledo, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INSERT IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS ON
MEANINGFUL AND AUTHENTIC DECENTRALIZATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
BY ADOPTING WITH MODIFICATIONS
THE PROPOSED PROVISIONS BY THE UP LAW CONSTITUTION PROJECT,
Proposed Resolution No. 176, introduced by Honorable Bennagen and Rosario
Braid, entitled:
REQUIRING THE STATE TO ESTABLISH A GENUINE AUTONOMOUS
GOVERNMENT IN THE CORDILLERA REGION
WITHIN A DEMOCRATIC AND SOVEREIGN FILIPINO NATION,
Proposed Resolution No. 178, introduced by Honorable Rosario Braid,
entitled:
RESOLUTION DECLARING THE AUTONOMY OF REGIONAL AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS AS THE BASIC FRAMEWORK OF THE POLITICAL
STRUCTURE OF THE STATE,
Proposed Resolution No. 247, introduced by Honorable Maambong,
Natividad, de los Reyes and Ople, entitled:
RESOLUTION GRANTING FULL AUTONOMY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,

Proposed Resolution No. 394, introduced by Honorable Sarmiento entitled:
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE
RECOGNIZING AND DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT,
Proposed Resolution No. 409, introduced by Honorable Ople, entitled:
RESOLUTION CREATING AUTONOMOUS REGIONS FOR THE MUSLIMS OF
MINDANAO AND THE PEOPLE OF THE CORDILLERA HIGHLANDS AND
PROVIDING FOR OTHER AREAS OF AUTONOMY
WITHIN LARGER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS,
Proposed Resolution No. 414, introduced by Honorable Rama, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO RESTORE THE PRE-MARTIAL LAW POLICY OF ALLOWING
VOTERS IN HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES TO VOTE FOR PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS,
Proposed
PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 15, 17, 138, 176,
178, 247, 394, 409 and 414 with Honorable Nolledo, Calderon, Tingson,
Rosales,
Alonto, de Castro, Bennagen, Rigos, Regalado, Jamir, Ople, de los Reyes, Jr.,
Maambong, Azcuna, Rosario Braid, Natividad, Sarmiento and Rama as
authors
thereof.
(Sgd.) Jose N. Nolledo
Chairman
Committee on Local Governments

PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
session assembled, to incorporate the following sections in the Article on
Local
Governments, in addition to those proposed in Resolution No. 470
(Committee Report No. 21):
ARTICLE _____
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SECTION 9. The legislature shall create autonomous regions consisting of
provinces and cities with common historical, geographic, cultural, linguistic,
ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics within the framework of
and respecting the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
Republic of the Philippines.
SECTION 10. The legislature shall enact an Organic Act for the autonomous
region in consultation with elective officials of the provinces and cities within
the region. This Organic Act shall define the basic structure of government
for the autonomous region consisting of the regional executive department
and
regional legislative assembly both of which shall be elective and
representative of the constituent political units. The Organic Act may likewise
provide
for a judicial system consisting of Courts of personal law jurisdiction within
the autonomous region consistent with the provisions of this Constitution on
Judicial Power.
SECTION 11. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully
executed.
SECTION 12. Within its territorial jurisdiction, the autonomous region shall
have authority over the following:
(1) Administrative organization;
(2) Regional taxation as provided for by law;
(3) Regional urban and rural planning and development;
(4) Regional economic, social and cultural development subject as to
economic development to policies laid down by the National Economic
Development
Authority,
(5) Establishment, maintenance and administration of schools in the
autonomous region;
(6) Promotion and regulation of tourism within the region;
(7) Establishment, operation and maintenance of regional health, welfare
and other social services.
(8) Protection of the environment in accordance with standards and
regulations of the national government;
(9) Preservation of customs and traditions and a indigenous to the
autonomous region;
(10) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of
the general welfare of the people of the autonomous region.
SECTION 13. Without prejudice to the above provisions, and except in areas
of legislation exclusively belonging to the national government such as
foreign
relations, the national defense customs, tariff, post and telecommunications,
the autonomous regions shall, by its regional assemblies, be authorized to
legislate on all other matters which concern the local administration of such
autonomous regions.
SECTION 14. The maintenance of peace and order within the region shall
remain the responsibility of the local chief executive of each constituent unit
who
shall exercise suspension over local police forces within the region. The
defense of the region shall be the responsibility of the national police or
army.
When circumstances so warrant, the regional government may establish its
own special forces subject to supervision by the national armed forces and
under
such provisions as the law may provide. Such special forces shall be under
the command of the President of the Philippines.
SECTION 15. All powers, functions, and responsibilities granted by this
Constitution or by law to the autonomous regions are vested in the National
Government.
SECTION 16. The first legislature under this constitution shall, within one
year from election of its Members, pass the Organic Acts for the autonomous
regions of Mindanao and the Cordillera. The said legislature shall, within a
period of not more than six (6) months after the organization thereof,
immediately define the territorial jurisdiction of autonomous regions that
may be granted Organic Acts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee Chairman, Commissioner Nolledo, is
recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER NOLLEDO
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I proceed to deliver my brief sponsorship remarks, I
would like to state here that our Committee made two reports. Committee
Report No.
21 covers, among others, the kinds of local government units, their taxing
powers and the provision on coordination of different political units for their
common benefits; while Committee Report No. 25 contains the provisions on
autonomous regions. After my brief remarks, Madam President, the other
members of
the Committee, namely, Commissioner Alonto and Bennagen, will also give
their own remarks to be concluded by Commissioner Ople.
Before I proceed further, I would like to express the Committees most
profound gratitude to the governors and city mayors of the League of
Governors and
City Mayors whom I met at Quezon City and with whom I had a two-hour
dialogue. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Rene Santiago of the
Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners, Mr. Michael Mastura, the
Philippine Social Science Council, the Office of Muslim Affairs and Cultural
Communities, especially Minister Candu Muarip and Atty. Fausto Lingating.
Madam President, the cry for meaningful, effective and forceful autonomy
has been loud and clear all over the country. That cry will no longer be a
voice
in the wilderness. Let this 1986 Constitutional Commission give a bold and
unequivocal answer to that cry. The report of the Committee on Local
Governments
is an indictment against the status quo of a unitary system that, to my mind,
has ineluctably tied the hands of progress in our country. It is claimed,
Madam President, that our linguistic and ethnic diversities are weaknesses
that can be strengthened by the unitary system; but I say our varying
regional
characteristics are factors to capitalize on to attain national strength through

decentralization.
As stated by Mr. Rene Santiago of the Philippine Institute of Environmental
Planners, who appeared several times before our Committee, a structure of
societal organization must adopt to the people and not the people to a
preconceived model of organization. He stated:
Filipinos are said to be highly individualistic, fractious, ungovernable, and
heir to numerous persuasions. A pluralist society lie ours would behave
incongruously under the unitary setup as many social scientists have
observed to the point of schizophrenia. It should be at home in a federalized
environment.
Decentralization gives hope to the poor. It disperses political power and
responsibility, just as wealth must be equitably diffused. As Somacher, an
economist, said: Centralization is mainly an idea of order while
decentralization, one of freedom. As Rene Santiago observed, centralization
emphasizes
the maintenance of status quo for society to sustain itself, while
decentralization promotes entrepreneurship and innovation.
Our unitary structure, indeed, gravitates toward order that progress
national and local becomes a casualty. Because of our enormous and
hardheaded
adherence to the unitary system foisted upon us by the colonial powers in a
span of several centuries, Filipinos have found the idea of dictatorship
appealling. That is why we always hear, and we seem to believe, that we
Filipinos respond better to a strong leader and we find ourselves wittingly
rammed
through a situation where our rights are despicably trampled upon and where
freedom becomes illusory and our dreams remain empty and unfulfilled.
Thus,
despite our vast natural resources and our great intellectual endowments,
the Philippines has lagged behind her Asian neighbors.
In our report, we have widened the taxing powers of local governments.
Thus, under our report, they can impose taxes, fees and charges, with right
of
retention and disbursements without undue interference from the national
government. They shall likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds of
exploitation and development of the national wealth within their respective
areas. We also provided in the report that the share of local governments in
the national taxes be released to them automatically. Our Committee did not
adopt any provision authorizing the establishment of a metropolitan
government
because we wanted to avoid overlapping of functions. Moreover, putting

together highly urbanized cities infringes upon the principles of local
autonomy and
decentralization. I, for one, believe that the Metro Manila Commission,
created under P.D. No. 824, was truly a self-centered creation of the deposed
dictator Ferdinand Marcos who wanted to consolidate political power over
areas within Metro Manila as a gift to his wife and inspired by the historical
imperative that the fall of the capital region will mean the end of their
imperial rule. The geopolitical area of Metro Manila, however, may be
maintained
under a coordinating agency as authorized by the provision of our committee
report that local government units may coordinate and consolidate their
efforts
and services for purposes beneficial to them.
Madam President, for the first time in the Philippine Constitution, in favorable
reaction to the needs of the times and in recognition of the realities of
Philippine situation, we are mandating the legislature to create autonomous
regions within the framework of, and respecting the, national sovereignty
and
territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.
Our Committee was torn between the question of setting a fully federal form
of government and the question of merely establishing autonomous regions.
We
decided to make our provisions flexible in the sense that while we are
mandating the creation of autonomous regions, particularly of Muslim
Mindanao and
the Cordilleras, we are opening an avenue towards full federalization of the
Republic of the Philippines by way of creating several autonomous regions
should Congress decide to do so in the future. Commissioners Alonto,
Bennagen and Ople will explain further the need to set up autonomous
regions.
Madam President, the challenge of this generation is brought forth before
this august body. I fervently hope and pray that this Commission will prove
equal
to the challenge.
Madam President, may I request that Commissioner Alonto be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER ALONTO
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, there is nothing more that I could add to the
brilliant exposition of the distinguished Chairman of our Committee. I only
want
to add some historical experience I encountered when I had the privilege of
being honored as one of those that have contributed to nation-building.
Madam President, the idea of a regional development plan started in
Congress in the year 1954. It was in that year that the members of Congress
of which I
was a humble member started to promote the idea of a regional economic
development in this country in the course of our nation-building. That
experiment of
Congress developed the idea that a regional economic development of our
country is much more effective than a centralized idea coming from the
central
government.
It was in that period when the establishment of different development
authorities, starting with the Mindanao Development Authority, was passed
and made
into law by Congress. This also started the idea of presenting before the
nation builders of this country that idea of the sociopolitical development of
our country based upon the concept of regional authority or regional
concept. Such concept started the idea that a federal form of government
would be more
acceptable in our country, taking into account the geographical situation, the
composition of the society, and the historical background of the Filipino
society.
Based on a paper I read before one of the seminars organized before the
start of the 1971 Constitutional Convention entitled The Political Problems of
the
Cultural Minorities, Maos effective way of solving the problem of uniting and
consolidating the multifarious sectors of our society would be some sort of
a federal form of government. In this document, I stated the following:
I can surmise this early that the strongest single factor that prompted the
call for this charter revision is the sense of urgency felt by the different
sectors that comprise the society to find a solution to the state of
disintegration taking place in our midst.
It is then a must that in re-framing the same law, it would be the highest
sense of patriotism for every member privileged to participate to analyze all
the basic problems that confront our society, not the least important of which
is the problem of Philippine unity. Together, let us reconstruct our

political thoughts in order to reconstitute the same to conform to the basic
philosophy of all the different elements that make up our society. Let us not
hesitate even to reconstitute our governmental structure if necessary, to
make it conform to the basic ideals of the different groups composing our
society. Let us abandon the straitjacket to which we were plunged by our
erstwhile masters as a condition precedent to the grant of a political freedom
and which became the basic cause of our failure to imbue the society with
the desirable sense of oneness and common destiny. For, unless we can
imbue our
people with a sense of oneness and common destiny, there seems to be no
possible avenue of containing the process of disintegration that is going on in
our
very midst involving not only the cultural minorities but the whole fabric of
our society.
I daresay that if to achieve unity, it is necessary to divide the country into
several autonomous states bound together by a common goal and sense of
oneness, we should not hesitate to do so. If unity cannot be achieved in a
strictly unitary system as experience has taught us, then by all means let us
revert to the only option left open for us UNITY IN DIVERSITY which seems
to be the goal fixed for us by Divine Wisdom when our ancestors, belonging
to a
common racial strain but speaking different tongues, ventured through
unchartered seas guided by the same Divine Providence to these different
islands
separated by natural barriers yet belonging to the same geographical region.
For the sake of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of precious lives
of our kin and kin that were sacrificed in the fields of battles to defend their
newfound paradise, for us, their progeny, let us forge that unity of the
anvil of necessity, perchance God Almighty, whose Providence controls the
destiny of man and nation, grants that we can preserve these beautiful Isles
for
the generations yet to come.
In other words, Madam President, my very rationale or standing on the
principle that we must take into account and into consideration the
multifarious
sectors of our society, the multiplicity of ideology, the multiplicity of
principles in our society to be able to structure our government is for each
sector of the society to make a basis of their cooperation in nation-building
the ideals that they preciously consider for themselves.
This is why in the different proposals to this Constitutional Commission, I am
most appreciative of those proposals that will at least give autonomous
freedom to the different sections of, if not all over, the country; but at least
to start with, with those that in the course of our nation-building have
shown some disparate and unrefusing and a highly unitarian centralized
authority in this country.
I refer, Madam President, to the Muslims of Mindanao and to some of our
brothers in Northern Luzon who adhere to the principle that in order to have
real
freedom, real justice and real democracy, each section of our society must
be given the chance and freedom to develop the ideals they prize so much in
life.
Madam President, I would like to lengthen my remarks in support of the
remarks of our distinguished Chairman. However, I would just submit as part
of the
Record some documents which are very pertinent to the discussion we are
now about to do. One of these is a document entitled Position Paper No. 2,
which
discusses the political problems of the cultural minorities in this country.*
Another document is on the need for a nation community which was the
essence of a speech that the humble Representation delivered before the
1971
Constitutional Convention.**
Another document I would like to submit as part of the Record of this
Constitutional Commission and as part of my remarks is a document entitled
Structure
of Government by Rev. Francisco Araneta, former President of the Ateneo de
Manila.*** This was submitted before the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
proposing a federal form of government for the country.
The last document I would like to present is a speech of a divine some of
the last pronouncements of the late Senator Benigno Aquino.**** In that
document, he proposed a solution to the very perplexing problem caused by
the Muslims in this country which resulted in the conclusion of the Tripoli
Agreement of 1976 by President Marcos and the Moro National Liberation
Front. This document clearly and articulately states that the solution to the
problem of the Muslims in this country is spelled in the implementation of the
Tripoli Agreement, and suggests means and ways by which that Tripoli
Agreement would be implemented by the government. These, I submit to
this body, as part of my short remarks and as part of the Record of this
Thank you, Madam President, for this opportunity for delivering my short
remarks. I hope that the report of this Committee would be acceptable to the
Members of this Constitutional Commission as a basic solution to our

problem of establishing real unity in Philippine society.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Senator Alonto.
THE PRESIDENT: Let those documents referred to by Commissioner Alonto be
made part of the proceedings.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Abubakar desire to be recognized?
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes, because I would like to strengthen the argument and
the observation of both speakers on local autonomy, that local autonomy has
been
implemented in Mindanao and it has succeeded. The Southern Autonomous
Government in Mindanao, composed of Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga and part
of Northern
Zamboanga, has now a seat in Zamboanga, with a legislative and executive
chairman. It has solved many of the agitations and problems of Southern
Mindanao.
My remark is simply to supplement and to add, to the argument and
presentation of the Chairman that this is a working reality. Local autonomy is
no longer
a theoretical concept in Southern Mindanao. There is local autonomy whose
seat is in Zamboanga, there is a chairman of the executive council, and there
is
also a legislative council. Each province in Southern Mindanao is represented
in the legislative seat in Zamboanga and the representatives meet to enact
measures for the good of the region. So, as far as local autonomy is
concerned, it is a success in Mindanao and there is no reason why we should
not move
forward to embrace further provinces under the same aggrupation, powers
and delegation, so that in the end, the autonomous region will take care of
its own
problems as we are now taking care of our problem in Zamboanga, Sulu and
Cotabato. This would, in turn, spread the concept which will ultimately be the
force in forging the national unity that the Filipinos have dreamed of and
have achieved to a certain extent. So, regional autonomy is now working in
Southern Mindanao.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: The next speaker, Madam President, is the honorable
Commissioner Bennagen.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER BENNAGEN
Actually, we have a number of arguments for creating the autonomous
regions. Many of these have to do with efficiency and manageability, but we
will
discuss them during the period of interpellations and period of amendments.
Given the little time that I have, I will just read a paper arguing for the
granting of autonomous region status to both the Cordilleras and the Bangsa
Moro.
For the last several weeks, we have been deliberating on matters that touch
the life of every Filipino, born and unborn. Now, we will be deliberating on
matters which shall determine the fate and destiny of the Bangsa Moro and
the Cordillera people -a fate intertwined with our own, and for the entire
country, a future which could spell war and fragmentation or a future of
peace and justice for all. Away from the harsh realities of the neglected and
underdeveloped conditions of the Cordilleras and of Mindanao, it is easy for
us in the comfort of this hall not to see how our decisions could affect the
lives of millions of people whom we do not know. But I do know and have felt
the overwhelming passion of the Bangsa Moro to achieve recognition of their
right to self-determination. I have been witness to the courage and
perseverance of the Cordillera peoples in their struggle for peace and justice.
They
see regional autonomy as the answer to their centuries of struggle against
oppression and exploitation. For so long, their names and identities have
been
debased. Their ancestral lands have been ransacked for their treasures, for
their wealth. Their cultures have been defiled, their very lives threatened,
and worse, extinguished, all in the name of national development; all in the
name of public interest; all in the name of the common good; all in the name
of the right to property; all in the name of the Regalian doctrine; all in the
name of national security. These phrases have meant nothing to our
indigenous communities, except for the violation of their human rights.
I can recite a litany of their grievances which spans centuries-poverty,
illiteracy, malnutrition and death rates. But I will simply quote an old man
from
the Cordilleras who said: We asked the government for a teacher, it did not
give us one. We asked for some help in fixing our roads, it did not send us
any. We asked for a doctor, it did not send us one. Instead, government men
came to build a dam and sent in the Philippine Constabulary and the army.
These, we did not ask for.
There are statistics on the thousands of indigenous communities displaced
by plantations, hydroelectric dams, mining and logging operations by virtue
of
state laws, presidential decrees and letters of instructions. But it will suffice
to quote the eloquent voices of Bontoc and Kalinga warriors. They say:
Long experience has shown us that the outsiders law is not able to
understand us, our customs, and our ways. Always, the state laws make just
what is
unjust, and make right what is not right. We are planted here, rooted in
sacred land. All our dead are buried here. Now we are asked by the
government to
allow our dead to be covered by the waters of the Chico Dam Project. This is
an impossible request. The government assures us that it will spare no effort
to disinter the dead, to remove the remains to new and better sites. It does
not understand. The very soil we tread on is the dust of our fathers. What
kind of law is this that asks us to agree to our annihilation as a people? If we
accept the decree of the government, it will be as if we ever doubted that
we belong to the land or that we question our ancient law. If we are forcibly
relocated, we can tell you that we will no longer consider ourselves under
the law.
Let us not forget that among the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people were
people who were massacred, salvaged, arrested and imprisoned, tortured
and
raped, all in the name of national security, law and order. For the entire
history of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people is a history of
oppression
and discrimination; but theirs too is a history of heroic resistance against
subjugation, tutelage and assimilation by the Spaniards, the Americans, the
Japanese, and even against uncaring Filipinos.
We should not, therefore, be surprised if they continue to practice their
ancient traditions of tribal democracy and custom law, if they persevere in
their
cherished belief and persist in their struggle to regain the right to selfdetermination.
History tells us, without meaning this to be some kind of blackmail, that the
Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people can wield the willpower and
determination like fierce knives and sharp spears in demolishing any
obstacle in their quest for justice, peace and self-determination. Listen to the
fiery
words of a Muslim: If we act in a civilized way which is the way of Islam,

they do not listen to us. Pero huramentado o jihad, iyon ang pakikinggan
nila.
Honorable Commissioners, we wish to impress upon you the gravity of the
decision to be made by every single one of us in this Commission. We have
the
overwhelming support of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people to grant
them regional autonomy in the new Constitution. By this we mean
meaningful and
authentic regional autonomy. We propose that we have a separate Article on
the autonomous regions for the Bangsa Moro and Cordillera people clearly
spelled
out in this Constitution, instead of prolonging the agony of their vigil and
their struggle. This, too, is a plea for national peace. Let us not pass the
buck to the Congress to decide on this. Let us not wash our hands of our
responsibility to attain national unity and peace and to settle this problem
and
rectify past injustices, once and for all.
For once, let us think of our indigenous communities even as we think of the
whole nation. For once, let us help pave the way for a future of prosperity
based on the equality of all people For once, let us courageously decide on
issues based on their internal merits and not to be clouded in our reasoning
by
the tyranny of emotionally loaded words, as often indicated by statements
like The only good Moro is a dead Moro.
Let me repeat the poignant words of Senator Diokno who wrote to Marcos
years ago, during the height of the Bontoc-Kalinga struggle against the Chico
Dam
Project:
Our indigenous communities are part and parcel of us. They are living links
to our yesteryears, perfect exemplars in fact of the barangay democracy you
seek to promote. In their culture they may well be a lamp on our past, to our
tomorrow. To destroy them is to destroy a vital part of our past, our present
and our future. Their death as a people, and we do not hesitate to call it
genocide, will be ours, too, as a nation. Whether justice or injustice, peace
or violence, life or death shall prevail, is entirely in your hands.
Finally, let me echo the wise words of the Muslims whom we met during the
public hearings: You in this Commission have a rare opportunity to write a
document of peace and justice.
Let us not miss that opportunity.
Marami pong salamat.

MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Bennagen. The last but not the least
speaker is the Honorable Blas F. Ople.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER OPLE
I think the Commission is dealing with two reports from the Committee on
Local Governments. Committee Report No. 21 deals with local autonomy for
the
government as a whole, particularly the local units, which I think is very
important. It is said that this is a colonial legacy, the overcentralized system
of government that denies the role of initiative at the local levels. It is, of
course, understandable that a colonial power would first of all annihilate
the autonomy of local units in order to ensure a foolproof security against
potential rebellions or disturbances. But at the same time Committee Report
No.
25 deals with a more specialized kind of autonomy, that is to say,
autonomous regions, on the premise that certain regions with unique
cultural, historic,
social and even religious bonds where they have been placed in a position of
inferiority relative to the dominant groups in society have the right to
demand autonomy, a measure of self-determination within the larger political
framework of the nation-state. I am addressing my remarks in the next two
or
three minutes precisely to the purposes of Committee Report No. 25. Within
this draft Article, therefore, there is a major provision for the creation of
autonomous regions. It is an authority for Congress to provide by law for
such regions of autonomy as may be determined to be necessary.
Throughout modern history, Madam President, autonomy for certain regions
within the framework of the nation-state has meant a constructive
alternative to
secessionist aspirations. May I quote briefly from the Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences the following words, and I quote:
Autonomy on a territorial basis would easily conflict with the State but the
two are not irreconcilable. If a State fails to induce interest in the
continued maintenance of the State union on the part of frontier outlying or
racially alien regions, it incurs the danger of their being annexed or of
their gaining independence. As a remedy, the State may grant to such

regions a certain measure of self-government within the larger political
framework.
The Muslim-Filipinos in Mindanao have fought for hundreds of years to
preserve their independence and their identity from the colonial power. More
recently, they precipitated a civil war in Mindanao which has already caused
an estimated 100,000 lives, including the lives of noncombatant women and
children. The hostilities fortunately were suspended in 1976 as a result of the
Tripoli Ceasefire Agreement. But this dormant war may act up all over again
with all its renewed fury if no understanding is reached between the Moro
National Liberation Front and the Aquino government. I understand that by
next
month the negotiations will resume in Jeddah where also the organization of
the Islamic Conference will be meeting. And that is the whole point. This
agreement for peace between Filipinos has been mediated by a 42-nation
international organization of the Islamic Conference as though our Muslim
brothers
have to look beyond our own shores and beyond the capabilities of our own
government, across the seas, for justice in the association of their fellow
legionists called the Islamic Conference of 42 states.
In the Cordillera region, we all know that there is still an ongoing armed
rebellion as well as continuous militant but peaceful agitation for autonomy.
The Constitutional Commission is, therefore, presented with one of those rare
opportunities, perhaps unrepeatable, to seal the permanent unity of these
two
regions with the rest of us, with the rest of the republic by granting them
autonomous status as proposed in this draft Article within the larger
sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines. The draft Article prepared by
the Committee on Local Governments under the distinguished chairmanship
of
Commissioner Nolledo defines the criteria for autonomous regions and their
spheres of jurisdiction. It reserves very clearly certain powers that only the
national government may exercise including those dealing with foreign
affairs, national defense, post, telegraph and communication and even the
guidelines
of economic policy, and where there is a security force, the supervision of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the control of the President of the
Philippines.
It calls on Congress to enact the organic acts for two regions Mindanao
and the Cordillera within one year from the election of its members. So,
this
is an assignment with a deadline to insure that there will be results. The
approval of this provision will immediately raise the hopes, morale and faith
in
the nation of the millions of our brother Filipinos involved in these regions
and will be a major contribution to peace in our land, in our time.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Ople.
Madam President, we are now ready to entertain questions from the
honorable Members of the Commission.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Treas be
recognized.
MR. TREAS: Madam President, may I ask the Committee or its Chairman a
few questions for clarification?
MR. TREAS: I am referring to Committee Report No. 21. Section 1 made
reference to the different political subdivisions and among them, the barrios.
I
notice that in the 1973 Constitution, the barrio was also referred to as the
smallest political subdivision.
In the meantime, we have the barangay as the smallest political subdivision.
May I ask the Committee if this provision of the 1973 Constitution referring
to the barrios has been amended and instead the barangay was used?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee has decided to revert to the original name of
barrio instead of barangay.
Mr. Marcos issued some decrees changing the barrio to barangay and those
decrees should be declared unconstitutional because there was no
corresponding
amendment in the 1973 Constitution. The 1973 Constitution uses up to now,
as also embodied in the Freedom Constitution, the word barrio. Besides, we
received a lot of communications from all over the country asking us to
revert to the name barrio because most of the ancient and even legal
documents
including titles still use the word barrio. The term barrio schools is still
found in the different parts of the country. I think another reason is
that the barangay is indicative of the dictatorial regime of Mr. Marcos. It is
also the unanimous sense of the members of the League of Governors and
City
Mayors that we revert to the term barrio.
MR. TREAS: So, from the time of the adoption of the present Constitution
we are drafting, we shall refer to barrios.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. TREAS: Insofar as Section 3 of the Article on Local Governments is
concerned, in case of province or city or municipality is divided or merged,
the
approval of the majority of the votes in a plebiscite called for the purpose in
the unit or units directly affected is needed. We had a recent case of
Negros del Norte which was divided from Negros Occidental. The plebiscite
referred only to the inhabitants of the proposed municipality and the
Supreme
Court declared it unconstitutional. The Committee adheres to the ruling of
the Supreme Court that the inhabitants to be consulted should not only be
the
inhabitants of the new province or city or town but the whole province. Am I
right?
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the Gentleman fully. I think the Committee will
fully agree because of the words directly affected. Those people are also
directly affected by division.
MR. TREAS: Just one more question. Section 6 of the same Article made
reference to the right of local governments to create their own sources of
revenue
and taxes. However, Section 7 also gave the same right to local governments
to levy and collect charges of contributions unique, distinct and exclusive to
them. Will the Gentleman briefly explain the difference between Section 6
and Section 7?
MR. NOLLEDO: First, with respect to Section 6, this is a direct conferment by
the Constitution on each local government unit of the power to impose its
own
sources of revenue and to levy taxes subject to such guidelines as may be
fixed by law. The Gentleman will notice that instead of using limitations as
may
be fixed by law, we used guidelines as recommended by the League of
Governors and City Mayors. So, there is a need for an authority like this
constitutional authority for each local government unit to impose such taxes,
fees and charges. With respect to Section 7 this section recognizes some
customary rules authorizing the levy of unique, distinct and exclusive taxes
in accordance with the customs of each particular place: There is no need of

any law, constitutional or statutory, for local government units to impose
these taxes. In other words, we recognize the existence of customs and, in
effect, we give validity to such customs.
MR. TREAS: Precisely, I notice the significance of the fact that while in
Section 6 the Committee placed subject to such guidelines as may be fixed
by
law the same is not found in Section 7.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, because there is an intent on the part of the
Constitutional Commission, it seems to me, to preserve the customs and
traditions of
members, of the indigenous communities. And this is one way of preserving
their customs and traditions. When these levies are imposed by customs, I
think
we assume that the members of the indigenous communities consider them
reasonable enough and they are willing and able to pay them.
MR. TREAS: Therefore, I am to understand that Congress cannot, insofar as
Section 7 is concerned, pass a law subjecting the levy and charges
mentioned
therein to any guideline.
MR. NOLLEDO: We do not necessarily preclude that possibility. Congress may,
after all, impose such guidelines as when the people crave for such
guidelines.
MR. TREAS: However, the effect of Section 7 is that local governments may
spend the levy and charges for its own use.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is true.
MR. TREAS: Exclusively?
MR. TREAS: Finally, I notice in the Article on Local Governments that highly
urbanized cities, which were mentioned in the 1973 Constitution, are not
mentioned anymore. The effect of that is, as I recall, highly urbanized cities
were not allowed to vote for provincial officials. Since we have done away
with them, inhabitants of the cities can now vote for provincial officials.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President. I think that was a clear intent on the
part of the Committee. The Gentleman will notice that in Section 4 (1),
Article
XI of the 1973 Constitution, this sentence appears:
Highly urbanized cities, as determined by standards established in the local
government code, shall be independent of the province.
We deleted that; we did not place that in our report because we believe that
voters of highly urbanized cities should be allowed to participate in
provincial elections.
MR. TREAS: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I would like to ask a few questions of the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama may proceed.
MR. RAMA: One reading Articles XXI and XXV will learn a lot of things about
what are the autonomous units, who will form the autonomous units, what
the
main features of the autonomous units are, who is going to supervise them,
et cetera, but it seems that one would not learn this basic question. What is
the purpose of these autonomous units? Why are we creating or introducing
them? Why do we need these autonomous units? Why do we create them?
Does the
Gentleman not think that we should have some kind of a statement on the
purpose, considering that this is a new feature in our Constitution whereby
the
citizen could understand and know the justification and the reason for such
autonomous units by giving a center to all these Articles like, for instance,
stating that the purpose is to speed up the economic and social development
of the regions and the people therein? Would the Gentleman consider a
statement
to that effect later in the period of amendments?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President. That question of the Gentleman, I
think, is very vital because the members of the Committee are deeply
concerned about
the formation of autonomous regions. Based on my sponsorship speech, I
believe that the purely unitary system has been a failure in the Republic of
the
Philippines. This country will never progress if we do not create autonomous
regions.
MR. RAMA: Yes, I agree with the Gentleman completely but I just want that
information for the people.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. I would like to furthermore state, if the Chair does not
mind, that even in the Constitutional Commission, we decided to fragmentize
ourselves into forming various committees towards a common end to draft
the Constitution as early as possible. You will notice that Committees
function
effectively, and so we talk of some sort of a division of labor in the same
manner that we talk of division of power.
For purposes of posterity, we would like to give some advantages in support
of regional autonomous regions.
Rapid growth could be better attained with a more efficient-and effective
management of the country. By limiting matters to be decided by the central
government to those of national importance, the central government will not
be unduly distracted by localized problems. Moreover, programs should be
designed according to regional priorities and potentials rather than on the
national yardstick of least common denominator. A genuine autonomy is
inhospitable to the rise of another Marcos; it will be more difficult for foreign
powers to influence or dominate the country because it may happen that
foreigners may influence one region but another region may resist, and it is
not easy to control all these regions. Also, by reason of the archipelagic
geography of our country, central governance is inefficient and
unresponsive. A regionalized structure will make the government more
accessible to the
people That we are regionalistic as a people is beyond dispute The reasons
for these are, besides our island geography, the existing linguistic and ethnic
diversities. The State can achieve equitable distribution of income through
the decentralization of political and economic power. In addition, the exercise
of these powers through local autonomy is also the key to modernization of
our rural areas. You will notice that the following countries have autonomous
regions: Spain, Italy, Argentina, Switzerland, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, Austria. among others. China is also one of them. In fact, in the
Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I understand, even the
names of the regions are mentioned. You will also notice that Switzerland,
because it has different ethnic idiosyncracies it has 22 cantons and two
are semicantons despite the fact that its people have different
persuasions,
remains united. There are Etruscans, Cretans, Celts, Romans, and Germans.
They have also a variety of languages. Two-thirds speak German, one-fifth
French,
one-tenth Italian, and one percent Rhaeto-Romanic. Despite the diversity in
religion as well as diversity in customs and traditions, there is unity in
Switzerland.
MR. RAMA: Thank you, Madam President.
I notice that the basis for unifying components to form into an autonomous
unit as stated in Section 9 should be:
common historical, geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal,
economic or other characteristics within the framework of and respecting the
national sovereignty. . .
On the other hand, in Section 16, it seems that the only basis for forming
Mindanao and Cordillera into autonomous regions is the ethnic and cultural
reason; is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman will notice that that is not the only basis. That
provision that he cited I am very happy that he cited that provision
opens
the avenue towards full federalization of the Republic of the Philippines. That
is why we enumerated several factors to be considered. The Gentleman can
add other factors if he wishes but ethnic consideration is not the only factor
to be considered in the grant of autonomy to Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras.
MR. RAMA: I grant that ethnic consideration should be considered with
respect to these unique regions. But does not the Gentleman think that we
should be a
little flexible in the sense that when we try to unite certain areas, we also
take into consideration the economic basis?
MR. NOLLEDO: We really consider the economic factor as material in the
formation of an autonomous region.
MR. RAMA: For instance, there is a site where a dam can be constructed that
will benefit a lot of areas around it. Instead of just looking into the ethnic
or cultural components of that area, would we not consider from the
economic point of view that the whole area would be served by that dam
and, therefore,
would boost the economy of that region?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is perfectly correct, Madam President. In fact,
the word communal can be a basis to form an autonomous region. For
example, we
can have Bicolandia as another autonomous region.
MR. RAMA: So, in creating an autonomous region for Mindanao, the
Gentleman would consider going beyond areas where the Muslims do not
reside if it would be
for the benefit of that area as a region or as an autonomous unit?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a legal possibility, Madam President. The Gentleman

will also notice that in Section 9, we added or other characteristics. We
wanted
to give a wider leeway to the Congress in the determination of whether the
regional autonomy should be granted to a particular region.
MR. RAMA: By the same token, for instance, there is an area or a province
that produces certain products and another province that consumes that
product
because it does not produce that product. Could they not be bounded
together in one region on the basis of that economic consideration?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is also a possibility.
MR. RAMA: I thank the distinguished Commissioner.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Just a few questions, Madam President.
My first question is: What is the relation of Committee Report No. 21 to
Committee Report No. 25? Are Sections I to 8 general provisions for a local
government unit versus the sections contained in Committee Report No. 25
which refer only to autonomous regions? Or are
Sections 1 to 8 general principles which would be applicable also to
autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, they are interrelated with each other
because even in Committee Report No. 21, we mentioned the term
autonomous regions.
Based on basic rules of statutory construction, Committee Report No. 21 may
be qualified by the pertinent provisions of Committee Report No. 25 in
appropriate cases.
Going to Section 3, my understanding of Section 3 is as follows: That an
autonomous region or a province for that matter cannot be created without
first
having a plebiscite among the inhabitants affected. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the Gentleman, Madam President.

MR. ROMULO: A plebiscite is a precondition to the creation of an autonomous
region or a province or a subdivision of an existing unit; is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President, that is why we did not provide for that
anymore in Committee Report No. 25.
MR. ROMULO: So, how does the Gentleman reconcile the need for a plebiscite
prior to the creation of an autonomous region with Section 16 which already
mandates, upon the acceptance of this Constitution, the Congress to pass an
organic act for the autonomous regions of Mindanao and Cordillera?
MR. NOLLEDO: The conflict is more apparent than real because the moment
an organic act is granted by the Congress, it is understood that the organic
act
must find acceptance among a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
called for the purpose. If there should be no such support, then the organic
act
would be ineffective.
MR. ROMULO: Does the Gentleman not think he is putting the cart before the
horse? Why should Congress not first determine whether the people or the
inhabitants affected desire an autonomous region before Congress enacts a
law to that effect?
MR. NOLLEDO: Even adopting that opinion, I think there would be no
inconsistency. Congress may do that, if Congress should decide to do it.
MR. ROMULO: But there is, because Congress is left no choice. Under Section
16, it is not only mandated to create the organic act; it is given a timetable.
It is given no leeway whatsoever and it does not say that this organic act
should be presented to the people in plebiscite.
On the contrary, under Section 10, the legislature consults only the elective
officials of the provinces and the cities. So, to me, the construction is
clear that prior to a plebiscite, Congress must create these autonomous
regions and they may or may not submit it to a plebiscite because the
Gentleman
seems to be carving an exception to Section 3 right in this Constitution.
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so. Section 3, because it mentions no
autonomous region, should likewise apply to an autonomous region. If the
Gentleman thinks
it is necessary to make the provision clearer, then we will entertain the
corresponding amendments.
MR. ROMULO: That is right.

In the Gentlemans answer to Commissioner Treas with regard to Sections 6
and 7, he seems to imply that in Section 7, the legislature may nevertheless
intervene. However, by the wording of the Gentleman, he is subjecting the
legislative authority only the taxes created under Section:6.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, if the Gentleman does not mind it, the implication that he
is talking about was qualified later on. I said there is possibility that
Congress may, after all, set forth certain guidelines to be followed with
respect to Section 7, if the circumstances should warrant because the
wordings in
Section 7 do not indicate subject to such guidelines as are expressly
indicated in Section 6.
MR. ROMULO: Therefore, statutory construction may dictate later that the
authority of Congress is limited only to Section 6; so I think we have to clarify
that.
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as I am concerned, there is no need to clarify the same
because I feel that the intent is to respect the customs and traditions of the
indigenous communities.
MR. ROMULO: But this talks about contributions unique, distinct and
exclusive to them; meaning, that these are a unique type of taxes. This is a
different
type of tax which, I take it, is already accepted in the indigenous
communities. So, if the wordings do not make it clear that Congress may
enact laws with
regard to these unique, distinct and exclusive charges, one may be depriving
Congress of that right. My other question precisely is: What are these unique,
distinct and exclusive levies?
MR. NOLLEDO: That may create some judicial questions or cases which our
courts may decide accordingly.
MR. ROMULO: That is not so if I read the rest of this provision. Such things
will be decided by the judicial system which will be created within each
region.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that judicial system itself will come into operation when
questions of this nature as may be arising from Section 7 may be presented
to
the courts.
MR. ROMULO: So, the national government, whether it is the legislature or

the executive, will be completely left out of this question. My point is that I
do not know what is referred to. What kind of taxes are these? Will the
Gentleman give me an example?
MR. NOLLEDO: We discussed this in the Committee and Commissioner Alonto
made some examples because there are areas where some contributions are
traditional. For example, they may arise from relationship of marriage or
relationship between parents and children even if they are already
emancipated.
We did not give specific examples, but customs and traditions can be proved
according to the Civil Code by the generally accepted rules of evidence.
When
someone questions the validity of the imposition, then, as I said, a judicial
question may crop up. But in the meantime, these are voluntary acts on the
part of the members of the indigenous communities and we do not expect
cases to arise therefrom.
MR. ROMULO: In Section 8, local taxes referred to relate, I would take it, to
what is provided in Section 6.
MR. NOLLEDO: I beg the Gentlemans pardon.
MR. ROMULO: Local taxes referred to in Section 8, I would assume, are those
taxes which are allowed under Section 6. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Therefore, they have been previously subjected to guidelines
from the legislature.
MR. NOLLEDO: Should the legislature decide to do so.
MR. ROMULO: On the other hand, it would not refer merely to local taxes
which are collected locally such as real estate tax.
MR. NOLLEDO: It depends on the provisions of the law involved because in
the case of real estate taxes, local government units are entitled to a share.
That may possibly fall under the last sentence.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, as provided by law, under present law. However, when we
talk of a share in the proceeds of exploitation and development of the
national
wealth within their respective areas . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: That was adopted from the Ople resolution. I would prefer
that Commissioner Ople answer that question.
MR. ROMULO. Yes, then let me pose my question. That is neither referred to
in Section 6 nor in the first part of Section 8; therefore, how is this to be
decided or implemented and by whom? Is this now going to be decided
exclusively by the legislature of the autonomous region?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the issue has to do with Section 8 on page 2 of
Committee Report No. 21:
Local taxes shall belong exclusively to local governments and they shall
likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation and
development
of the national wealth within their respective areas.
Just to cite specific examples, in the case of timberland within the area of
jurisdiction of the Province of Quirino or the Province of Aurora, we feel
that the local governments ought to share in whatever revenues are
generated from this particular natural resource which is also, considered a
national
resource in a proportion to be determined by Congress. This may mean
sharing not with the local government but with the local population. The
geothermal
plant in the Macban, Makiling-Banahaw area in Laguna, the Tiwi Geothermal
Plant in Albay, there is a sense in which the people in these areas, hosting
the
physical facility based on the resources found under the ground in their area
which are considered national wealth, should participate in terms of
reasonable rebates on the cost of power that they pay. This is true of the
Maria Cristina area in Central Mindanao, for example. May I point out that in
the previous government, this has always been a very nettlesome subject of
Cabinet debates. Are the people in the locality, where God chose to locate
His
bounty, not entitled to some reasonable modest sharing of this with the
national government? Why should the national government claim all the
revenues
arising from them? And the usual reply of the technocrats at that time is that
there must be uniform treatment of all citizens regardless of where Gods
gifts are located, whether below the ground or above the ground. This, of
course, has led to popular disenchantment. In Albay, for example, the
government
then promised a 20-percent rebate in power because of the contributions of
the Tiwi plant to the Luzon grid. Although this was ordered, I remember that
the
Ministry of Finance, together with the National Power Corporation, refused to
implement it. There is a bigger economic principle behind this, the principle
of equity. If God chose to locate the great rivers and sources of hydroelectric
power in Iligan, in Central Mindanao, for example, or in the Cordillera,
why should the national government impose fuel adjustment taxes in order
to cancel out the comparative advantage given to the people in these
localities
through these resources? So, it is in that sense that under Section 8, the
local populations, if not the local governments, should have a share of
whatever
national proceeds may be realized from this natural wealth of the nation
located within their jurisdictions.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, thank you. I am not really arguing the share. All I wanted
to know is who will decide and the Gentleman seems to say that it is
Congress.
MR. OPLE: Congress will decide.
MR. ROMULO: That is my whole point, not the local legislative assembly but
the national Congress.
MR. OPLE: Yes, this will require a national policy that only Congress can
establish.
MR. ROMULO: As to Section 9, in view of the Chairmans answers to
Commissioner Rama, I would assume that not only are the seeds of
federalism implanted in
Section 9 but other regions are actually encouraged to become autonomous;
is that correct? Is that the sense of the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President. That is why we mentioned here
specifically Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras because we feel that these
will serve as
models should Congress decide to fully federalize the Republic of the
Philippines. I believe that we must do so, if we are to go far and if we are to
progress.
MR. ROMULO: So, Section 9 really authorizes Congress to federate the
Philippines if it so wishes?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, we give discretion to the Congress.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I have a slight disagreement with the Chairman
of the Committee. I would like to accept this as a statement of aspiration, but
I
do not think the committee report is sending a definitive signal to the future
that we ought to federalize. If that is the extent of our aspiration, in the

proper course, I would invite the Chairman to develop a more explicit
provision. That, however, will take us to another domain of public policy
which may
result in an overhaul of this Constitution and I just wanted to call attention to
that.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, in my opinion, that is a very serious question and it would
involve momentous decisions. If that is what we are being called upon to
decide by Section 9, I think it better be made clear to all of us. We are, in
fact, implanting through Section 9 the possibility of federating this
country.
MR. OPLE: I do not know if the Chairman agrees.
MR. NOLLEDO: If that is the intent of the Committee or perhaps the possible
intent of the Commission, I do not think it is expressly necessary to say so.
We are only opening the avenue to the possibility because. . .
MR. OPLE: I think what we want to establish is a kind of maximum
decentralization, short of federalization, at this moment in history.
MR. ROMULO: That sounds like someone being half pregnant.
MR. OPLE: No, that is what local autonomy ought to mean.
MR. ROMULO: That is what I am trying to say. Is the Gentleman talking of
local autonomy or is he talking of federalism?
MR. OPLE: Local autonomy, Madam President.
Section 12 enumerates a great many powers which will be granted to the
autonomous region and these are: powers of taxation, development, health,
school,
protection of the environment, et cetera. All these require financial and
economic resources. Has the Committee in its study determined whether
these
regions are economically viable by themselves?
MR. NOLLEDO: In that case, we are leaving it to Congress to determine
whether or not it is viable to create autonomous regions out of the particular
provinces and cities applying for regional autonomy.
MR. ROMULO: And I take it, because of the mandate, whether viable or not,
one will expect the rest of the country to contribute to the viability of these
autonomous regions through their taxes. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, because whether it is viable or not, I think
that is a relative question. Congress may provide the necessary incentives or
the necessary support when it complies with the mandate set forth in this
Constitution.
Commissioner Bennagen would like to talk on this.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Let me ask then the other question: Therefore, is Congress free
to determine whether the applicant for regional autonomy is viable
economically, and if it is not, then Congress may refuse to grant autonomy?
Is that the application?
MR. NOLLEDO: Congress may delay the grant.
MR. ROMULO: Delay?
MR. NOLLEDO: It may delay, in the meantime, and it may not grant
immediately until viability is proven.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in connection with that, right now the existing
law on local governments provides that one of the standards to be met for
creating a new local government unit such as a municipality or a province is
the economic viability which is often quantifiable and is so quantified.
MR. ROMULO: Exactly.
MR. OPLE: And, therefore, in enacting the organic act, as mandated here for
an autonomous region, the capacity for self-reliance, including financial
self-reliance, will be one of the standards that will presumably be laid down
by Congress on the basis of existing law.
MR. ROMULO: Although it is conspicuously absent in Section 9.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. For the information of Commissioner Romulo, at least,
in the case of both the Cordillera and the Bangsa Moro, we have statistics to
show
their economic viability based on the investigation of existing natural

resources in the area as well as the human resources.
MR. ROMULO: And thus, they do not need the support of the national
government?
MR. BENNAGEN: That has to be taken care of again in relation to other
existing provisions as already pointed out by Commissioners Ople and
Nolledo. We do
not see here a complete separation from the central government, but rather
an efficient working relationship between the autonomous region and the
central
government. We see this as an effective partnership, not a separation.
MR. ROMULO: Therefore, complete autonomy is not really thought of as
complete independence.
MR. OPLE: We define it as a measure of self-government within the larger
political framework of the nation.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. And, therefore, relations of dependency when it comes to
economic and financial matters may be taken into account.
MR. OPLE: To the extent of its political subordination to the larger sovereignty
and especially keeping in mind the very depressed conditions of these
regions, I would not foreclose the possibility of Congress desiring to extend
national support, especially in the beginning years, to regions with
autonomy.
MR. ALONTO: And besides that, Madam President, we would like to inform the
honorable Commissioner that even in a real and strictly federal system of
government like the United States, economic relation between the central
government and the state has never been removed.
MR. ROMULO: That is correct.
MR. ALONTO: There is no complete independence or autonomy, as the
honorable Commissioner has mentioned.
MR. ROMULO: And; therefore, it allows the federal government to intervene
and to regulate the states when their rights begin to disappear. I just want to
make that point.
Section 12 (5) talks of establishment, maintenance and administration of
schools in the autonomous region. Basically, I have the same question. I
assume
again that the cost of maintenance will be borne by the autonomous region.
If not, and even if these are maintained, to what extent may this educational
system be subordinated or coordinated with the policies of the national
government with regard to education?
MR. BENNAGEN: There could be a number of variations on this in relation to
financial responsibility. It could end up to a secondary or tertiary level. But
we are more concerned with curricular content, with what is being taught;
that is, an educational program should be responsive to the particularities of
the region and the peoples aspirations. So that in recognition of the cultural
and geographic diversity, the central government shall not impose a uniform
educational system.
As to the mechanics, some form of working relationships can be established
between the central government and the regional-governments.
MR. ROMULO: But not to the exclusion of the national governments
educational policies.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, definitely not.
MR. ROMULO: Because I suppose that while we want to preserve indigenous
culture, et cetera, there is another value that we wish to promote, and that is
national unity.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is right.
MR ROMULO: And integration to some extent and identity.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is clear in the statement of principles: that we
recognize diversity within the framework of national unity. This holds true in
many
spheres of social services, not only in terms of education but also of health
and even of infrastructure.
MR. OPLE: In the case of Muslim Mindanao, Madam President, schools here
can refer more specifically to the Madrasah system where Islamic traditions
are
taught.
MR. ROMULO: There are other speakers; so although I have some more
questions, I will reserve my right to ask them if they are not covered by the
other
speakers. I have only two questions.
I heard one of the Commissioners say that local autonomy already exists in
the Muslim region; it is working very well; it has, in fact, diminished a great
deal of the problems. So, my question is: since that already exists, why do
we have to go into something new?
MR. OPLE: May I answer that on behalf of Chairman Nolledo. Commissioner
Yusup Abubakar is right that certain definite steps have been taken to
implement
the provisions of the Tripoli Agreement with respect to an autonomous region
in Mindanao. This is a good first step, but there is no question that this is
merely a partial response to the Tripoli Agreement itself and to the fuller
standard of regional autonomy contemplated in that agreement, and now by
state
policy.
For example, most of the functions listed here are not yet being exercised by
the regional autonomous government in Mindanao, and that is the reason for
the continuing negotiation between the Philippine government and the Moro
National Liberation Front and its allied organizations in order to insure that
the standards of autonomy and its effectiveness will rise to that level
contemplated in the Tripoli Agreement.
MR. ROMULO: For my final question, Madam President, because I think it is a
serious one and I do not wish to have it misunderstood. It seems to have
been
implied that the choice of the Commission is either to accept these
provisions and have peace or we reject these provisions and have war. Is that
really
the dilemma of the Committee in presenting this to us?
MR. OPLE: It is not the Committee but it is history that presents this choice to
our people. I do not think it can be denied that more than 100,000 lives
have already been lost. There would have been many more thousands of
lives lost, if there was no ceasefire in 1976 and 1977. That Agreement, of
course, has
suspended hostilities for a time.
But I think we have heard from our colleagues from Mindanao about the new
gravity of the situation there. This explains the urgency with which a local
ceasefire in Sulu was concluded the other day, and the general sense of
relief that greeted it on the part of the national government. But that is
merely a
partial settlement. The bigger settlement will be negotiated next month in
Jeddah, when the President of the Philippines sends a delegation to negotiate
with the MNLF within the purview of the next meeting of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference.
So, in a sense, we are still threatened with war, Madam President.

MR. ROMULO: Yes. So, it is the Commissioners position that we really have
no choice with regard to this provision.
MR. OPLE: We do not want to appear as though this Committee is
intimidating anyone about his choice. But what we are saying is that indeed
a stark
choice.
MR. ROMULO: That is the logical conclusion of the statement that I have
heard.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: That if local autonomy will not be agreed upon as stipulated in
this committee report, our choice will be war. If that is so, the Committee is,
therefore, not giving anybody a choice.
MR. OPLE: We are not adducing our opinion, but the facts bring themselves
forward in terms of this new situation.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: There are threats from the Moro National Liberation Front which
cannot be lightly dismissed. They are prepared to resume full hostilities, and
on
the part of our government, it is becoming a fraternal response. .
MR. ROMULO: In the end, the bottom line, which I think I am hearing from the
Committee individually or collectively, is that we have a very small thin
choice with regard to autonomy as expressed here or we will have war.
MR. OPLE: I am afraid the Gentleman has described the stark truth of the
situation.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to supplement the statement already made by
Commissioner Ople. The choice is not something that we, in our own
subjective
wishes, would like to present in the provisions; it is a choice that is presented
to us by the dynamics of social change and the dynamics of history which
tell us at this particular point in time that such a decision has to be made.
And we only wish that it could be made within the framework of national
unity
and democratic processes because there are other options that are open to
the people beyond which we will have no domain.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Bernas wishes to be recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the questions I have are fundamentally
follow-up questions on some of the questions raised by Commissioners
Treas and Romulo.
I would like to begin from the recently decided case of Negros del Norte. The
Gentleman said that the principles enunciated in that Negros decision are
still applicable under this provision.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: However, I notice that the word directly was added in this
committee report whereas under the 1973 Constitution, it said: In a
plebiscite
called for the purpose in the unit or units affected. Does the word directly
add anything or modify the principles in the Negros decision?
MR. NOLLEDO: To my mind, the word directly does not change the
substance of the ruling.
FR. BERNAS: So, it was not the intention of the Committee to change the
substance of the ruling.
FR. BERNAS: To go into greater detail, for purposes, for instance, of the
creation of a barrio or the abolition of a barrio, would we need a plebiscite of
the entire municipality?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, because the barrio will be taken out of the municipality.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. And for the purpose of the creation of a city or a
municipality within a province, would we have a plebiscite in the province?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is the implication.
FR. BERNAS: And if it is a question of the creation of a province, it would

involve a plebiscite within the province or provinces from which that is being
cut off?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman must be implying an existence of a regional
government.
FR. BERNAS: Or if it is part of a region, then the plebiscite would involve the
entire region.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think so.
FR. BERNAS: But if it comes to the creation of an autonomous region, how
widespread will the plebiscite be? Would it be national?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a very good question. In that case, it should only be
the people within the units that will form the region itself. That is my
opinion.
FR. BERNAS: But that departs from the principle of the Negros case because
in the Negros case, it is not just the people that were included in the new
territory but the people from which the territory is being carved out, as it
were. If we are creating an autonomous region within the nation, in effect,
we
really are carving out a territory from the entire nation, so it would seem that
logically the entire nation should be involved in a plebiscite.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President, that is the consequence, but it would
be unwieldy if we will ask the entire country to participate. We are not taking
out the region from the country; we are forming an autonomous independent
region. And I think the people who are directly affected are those actually
residing within that region.
FR. BERNAS: But the rest of the nation is also affected in the same way that
when we create a province out of an existing province, it is the entire
province that is affected and not just the portion that is being cut off from
that province.
MR. NOLLEDO: We can remedy that by an amendment if it seems that there
is a direct contradiction.
FR. BERNAS: The reason I am asking this is not to have a quarrel with the
Committee or anybody but just for the sake of clarity. Is the Committee
talking
about the creation of an organic act?
MR. NOLLEDO: We are talking about the passing of an organic act.

FR. BERNAS: Correct. When the legislature creates this organic act, will it be
acting as a constituent assembly or as a legislative body?
MR. NOLLEDO: In relation to that, there is a proposed amendment that the
Committee will present in due time. So, if the Commissioner will not mind, I
will
reserve my answer to that question.
FR. BERNAS: Can the sponsor give us a hint as to his answer?
MR. BENNAGEN: Since the question of autonomy is a matter of exchanging
importance to the occupants of the autonomous region, we would suggest
that all
sectors of that autonomous region be involved, not only the legislature nor
the elected local officials but a representative cross-section of the
population should be involved.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, that is the reason I am bringing this up. This thing involves
some rather far-reaching consequences also in relation to the issue raised
by Commissioner Romulo with respect to federalism. Are we, in effect,
creating new categories of laws? Generally, we have statutes and
constitutional
provisions. Is this organic act something in between the two or is it
something equivalent to a constitutional provision? If it is going to be
equivalent
to a constitutional provision, it would seem to me that the formulation of the
provisions of the organic act will have to be done by the legislature,
acting as a constituent assembly, and, therefore, subject to the provisions of
the Article on Amendments. That is the point that I am trying to bring up.
In effect, if we opt for federalism, it would really involve an act of the
National Assembly or Congress acting as a constituent assembly and present
amendments to this Constitution, and the end product itself would be a
constitutional provision which would only be amendable according to the
processes
indicated in the Constitution.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I express my personal opinion in this
respect.
I think to require Congress to act as a constituent body before enacting an
organic act would be to raise an autonomous region to the same level as the
sovereign people of the whole country. And I think the powers of Congress
should be quite sufficient in enacting a law, even if it is now exalted to the
level of an organic act for the purpose of providing a basic law for an
autonomous region without having to transform itself into a constituent

assembly.
We are dealing still with one subordinate subdivision of the State even if it is
now vested with certain autonomous powers on which its own legislature can
pass laws.
FR. BERNAS: So, the questions I have raised so far with respect to this
organic act are: What segment of the population will participate in the
plebiscite?
In what capacity would the legislature be acting when it passes this? Will it
be as a constituent assembly or merely a legislative body? What is the
nature, therefore, of this organic act in relation to ordinary statutes and the
Constitution? Finally, if we are going to amend this organic act, what
process will be followed?
MR. NOLLEDO: May I answer that, please, in the light of what is now
appearing in our report.
First, only the people who are residing in the units composing the region
should be allowed to participate in the plebiscite. Second, the organic act has
the character of a charter passed by Congress, not as a constituent
assembly, but as an ordinary legislature and, therefore, the organic act will
still be
subject to amendments in the ordinary legislative process as now
constituted, unless the Gentleman has another purpose.
FR. BERNAS: But with plebiscite again.
MR. NOLLEDO: Those who will participate in the plebiscite are those who are
directly affected, the inhabitants of the units constitutive of the region.
FR. BERNAS: So, what I gather from that is that as far as the creation of the
autonomous region is concerned, the Committee is really departing from the
principle established in the Negros del Norte case.
MR. OPLE: To that extent.
MR. NOLLEDO: Truly to that extent.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Uka be
recognized.

MR. UKA: Madam President and members of the Committee, permit me to
read a portion of a paper sent to me on the subject of the Bangsa Moro
autonomy, and I
quote:
Autonomy is an expression of the Bangsa Moros conviction of its being a
viable alternative to separation, and reposes their hope in the new Charter
now
being drafted as one which shall grant recognition to their historical status,
inherent rights, and aspirations.
The fundamental premises urging a constitutional grant of autonomy to the
Bangsa Moro are: The Bangsa Moro is a historically and culturally distinct and
separate nation from the Christian majority and deserves this status under
the universal principle of self-determination; and Islam is the religion and
way
of life of the Bangsa Moro which requires a separate political and
administrative framework from the Western concept and principle of
separation of church
and state. The latter is similarly important because the Bangsa Moro
embraces Islam as the central theme, not only of his religious practices, but
all
other aspects of life including the government and the economy. Hence, a
political fusion with the Christian majority is workable only under a
framework of
political autonomy which shall allow the full flowering of the genius of the
Bangsa Moro in the context of his Islamic culture.
Why does the Bangsa Moro insist on autonomy? Because it is theirs by legal
and historical right. Before the coming of the Spaniards in 1521, they were
already a sovereign and independent nation. However, they were forced into
joining the Philippine Republic after they were promised justice, equality and
fairness. But after more than 51 years as citizens of the Philippines, they
continue to be treated as second-class citizens.
In spite of the Bangsa Moros history of struggle against exploitation by the
Christian majority, they still have confidence in the new government under
President Aquino, in whom they repose their high hopes for justice and
recognition of their legitimate status and rights. This positive outlook springs
from the knowledge that even the late Ninoy Aquino had openly stood in
support of the Bangsa Moro autonomy. It is their hope that President Corazon
Aquino
shall also stand by her late husbands conviction and commitment to the
cause of the Bangsa Moro.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I would like to differ from
Commissioner Bernas view that there is a deviation from the doctrine in the
Negros del
Norte case when it comes to the creation of an autonomy. I think there is no
deviation because we are only creating another form of local government
and
there is no portion of the territory of the nation that is being divided or
separated. Therefore, only the people affected will vote. While in the Negros
del Norte case, a new province is being carved out of an existing province,
which means a diminution of that existing province and for which reason the
whole province will vote.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to support that theory, but it seems that the
difference is very minimal. And I think Commissioner Bernas has a point
there.
However, as far as I am concerned, I would like to support the Gentlemans
theory because it really supports our report.
MR. DE LOS REYES: In answer to the questions of Commissioner Treas where
he stated that the old provision in the 1973 Constitution, which makes highly
urbanized cities independent of the province, is already being repealed
because it is his intention again to make highly urbanized cities part of the
province.
In Section 166 of the Local Government Code, highly urbanized cities are
cities with a minimum population of 150,000, as certified by the National
Census
and Statistics Office and with the latest annual income of at least P30 million,
as certified by the Minister of Finance; whereas the other city is known
as the component city which does not have that qualification, which means
that it has a population of less than 150,000 and its annual earning is less
than
P30 million. I would like the Gentleman to know that these highly urbanized
cities are better off as independent cities rather than being made part of the
province. They are independent; they earn a lot; they even earn more than
the province; and, moreover, they do not contribute anything to the
province. For
this reason, would the Gentleman like to reassess or rethink his stand on the
matter? I think the present setup where highly urbanized cities are separate
from the province should be maintained.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the question of Commissioner Treas is predicated on
the principle of whether or not the population of the highly urbanized cities
can
participate in the election of officials of the province. In all other cases, the
provisions cited by the Gentleman; namely, Section 166 of the Local
Government Code, which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, may still stand. I know
as a fact that there is a future amendment to be presented possibly by
Commissioner Napoleon Rama where inhabitants of highly urbanized cities
should be allowed to vote for elective provincial officials because there was a
claim that this was done by Mr. Marcos in order that the highly urbanized
cities composed mostly of intellectuals who are fighting him should not
participate in the election of provincial officials because of the intent to
control elective provincial officials.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, under the Gentlemans theory, we will revert to a
situation where the Cities of Pasay and Caloocan and, I think, even Quezon
City
will have to vote for the Governor of Rizal. Is that the intention?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think Commissioner Rama would like to comment on that.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Commissioner Ramas situation is different because that
is Cebu City.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, I would like to give my opinion after him.
MR. RAMA: I would like to explain why I filed that resolution. Traditionally,
since time immemorial, Cebu City has been voting for its provincial
officials. It may be different here in Manila because for a long time the
Greater Manila area was not voting for governorship. So, I just want to have
that
practice because there was gerrymandering in the case of Cebu.
MR. NOLLEDO: I adopt the answer of Commissioner Rama with the addition
that the Greater Manila area has been a separate geopolitical unit for a
considerable length of time.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, in Section 1, the Gentleman stated
that the different local units and political subdivisions are provinces, cities,
municipalities, barrios and autonomous regions. Does this mean that
Congress cannot create another form of politic subdivision, for example, a
metro
government, like to present Metro Manila government? Does the report of
the Gentlemans Committee mean that we are doing away with the Metro
Manila
government and that we are prohibiting future Congress from creating such a
form of local government unit forever?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to answer the last question because it is more
specific. That was the intent of the Committee. Because of overlapping of
functions, we feel that highly urbanized cities can stand alone without the
need of forming a supergovernment, like the Metro Manila Commission.
Besides,
we provided in Section 5 of Committee Report No. 21 that local government
units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services
and
resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them. That, to my mind, is
enough basis to form a coordinating agency, for example, to coordinate the
basic
services and efforts of areas that are covered within the metropolitan area of
Manila. In other words, we are doing away with the metropolitan
governments
even if the draft of the University of the Philippines recommended such kind
of government. We did not adopt the provisions on metropolitan government,
and
this is in accord with the suggestion of the League of Governors and City
Mayors.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, upon the approval of ratification of this new
Constitution, assuming that the committee report will be adopted, the Metro
Manila
Commission and the Metro Manila government shall be deemed abolished.
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily because there is a provision in the Transitory
Provisions that existing laws may still continue until changed or repealed by
the forthcoming Congress.
But to my mind-I am speaking individually, not on behalf of the Committee
-P.D. No. 824 that created the Metro Manila government was really contrary
to the
Constitution, as I stated in my sponsorship speech. But because the Supreme
Court of the Philippines, in the case of Lopez vs. COMELEC and Lopez vs.
Metro
Manila Commission ruled that P.D. No. 824 is constitutional in view of the
1984 Amendment to the Constitution where the National Capital Region was
considered as a separate region by itself. In fact, I think the Supreme Court
found difficulty in justifying the constitutionality of P.D. No. 824.
In view of that ruling and our belief adhering to the rule of law that the
Supreme Court, whether right or wrong, is still correct, then P.D. No. 824 still
exists until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for a suspension of the session for a few
minutes.
It was 4:16 p.m.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, the next interpellator is Commissioner
Rodrigo. May he be recognized?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I have a few questions for clarification.
Section 16 provides that the legislature in within a limited period of time
shall
pass organic acts for the autonomous regions of Mindanao and Cordillera. My
question is: Are these organic acts uniform for the two regions or may the
legislature pass one organic act for the Cordillera and a different organic act
for Mindanao?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, Section 16 says that the legislature will pass the
organic acts for the autonomous regions of Mindanao and the Cordilleras; by
that, I suppose that there will be separate organic acts.
MR. RODRIGO: Separate?
MR. OPLE: Yes, for the two autonomous regions.
MR. RODRIGO: So, it is possible for the legislature to give more autonomy to
the Cordillera than to Mindanao and vice-versa.
MR. OPLE: Within the framework of the constitutional provisions, Madam

President.
MR. RODRIGO: This section mentions autonomous region of Mindanao. Does
that refer to the whole of Mindanao?
MR. OPLE: It refers to the so-called Muslim Mindanao in the context of the
Moro homeland mentioned in the Tripoli Agreement; but in saying this, I do
not
want it understood that we are limiting the power of Congress to determine
the autonomous areas.
MR. RODRIGO: The Tripoli Agreement, if I remember right, comprises not only
Mindanao but Palawan and Sulu, am I right?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. The original Moro homeland consists of 13
provinces which, however, in the late 1970s had been reduced to about to
with
Davao, Cotabato and Palawan being taken out of the original area.
MR. RODRIGO: But under Section 16 the legislature has the power to
determine which areas will comprise this region. It might specify only a few
provinces
in the Island of Mindanao plus a few cities, is that right?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. By these provisions, we do not want to limit
the power of Congress in determining the areas of the autonomous regions.
MR. RODRIGO: After enacting the organic acts for Mindanao and the
Cordillera, the legislature may then enact other organic acts for different
regions in
the Philippines. I heard Commissioner Nolledo mention a possible
autonomous region in Ilocos and Bicol.
My question is: Will the organic act for Ilocos and Bicol be uniform? Or can
they again be different from each other?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I may have a slight disagreement with my
colleagues in the Committee concerning the entitlement of the Ilocos and
Bicol regions
to the same terms of regional autonomy which are proposed to be conferred
upon Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera on the basis that the Ilocos, the
Bicol,
the Tagalog provinces, the Visayan provinces and some Mindanao provinces
constitute the so-called dominant groups in the Philippine social and
territorial structure and, therefore, autonomy given to one region among
these dominant groups, the so-called traditional Christian Filipino groups,

should be accessible to every other such region. The reason why Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordillera are claiming autonomy is that they have a
certain
uniqueness and what they consider an inferior relationship with the dominant
groups in society which are the Christian lowland groups, including the
Tagalogs, the Ilocanos, the Visayans, the Pangasinenses, the Pampangueos
and those in the Christian provinces in Mindanao. And so, I think the specific
context for the quanta of autonomy for these dominant groups should be
uniform. Committee Report No. 21 refers principally to the nonautonomous
regions
which constitute the entire infrastructure of our local governments.
MR. RODRIGO: But may regions populated by Filipinos whom the Gentleman
calls dominant groups be also converted into autonomous regions?
MR. OPLE: According to Chairman Nolledo, they may invoke the rights of
autonomy.
MR. RODRIGO: Since Commissioner Nolledo is the Chairman, is this then the
official stand of the Committee? .
MR. OPLE: I think the Committee would like to play it safe. If Chairman
Nolledo agrees, we will say that in the case of the dominant groups
meaning, most
of the nation, except for the historically disadvantaged groups with their own
unique cultures and traditions what should apply is Committee Report No.
21.
MR. RODRIGO: So, they may not be converted into autonomous regions?
MR. OPLE: Not in the immediate future, not within the immediate provisions
of this Constitution, unless there is a constitutional amendment later that
would make available certain federal features or powers of government to all
the regions other than the autonomous regions.
MR. RODRIGO: We have on record the statement of Chairman Nolledo that
under this provision, if the Ilocos region and the Bicol region want to have
autonomy, they may do so.
MR. OPLE: I think he said this in the context of a statement of aspirations
which later on may follow.
MR. RODRIGO: This is very important so I want a definite answer.
Under these constitutional provisions, if they are approved, may there be

autonomous regions outside of Mindanao and the Cordillera? This is very
important.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President, under Section 9. That is why it will be
noticed that in the comment of Commissioner Rama, he was recommending
that
ethnic considerations be not the sole consideration in the formation of
autonomous regions. That is why we included economic and communal
factors, et
cetera, instead of concentrating on ethnic characteristics.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this is not a mere declaration of aspiration. This is actually
authorized by this proposed provision.
MR. NOLLEDO: It can be interpreted as aspirations because later on certain
regions can aspire for an appropriate charter so as to declare themselves
autonomous regions.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the legislature then, if it wants to convert Ilocos and Bicol
into autonomous regions, will enact the requisite organic act?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is up to Congress to determine the viability.
MR. RODRIGO: I will come back to my question. Do the two organic acts, one
for Ilocos and the other for Bicol, have to be uniform or may they be different
from one another? May the organic act for Ilocos grant more autonomy to
Ilocos than to Bicol and vice-versa?
MR. NOLLEDO: In certain areas, they may be uniform. For example, the
setting up of a regional legislature and an executive department, but taking
into
account the particular characteristics of the region because there may be
some differences.
We will notice the analogy that several banks, for example, were granted
congressional charters like the charters of the PNB and the DBP. Most of the
provisions are uniform, but there are certain provisions where uniformity
could not possibly be attained.
MR. RODRIGO: Autonomous regions are, I think very different from banks.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, I am just giving an examples, by analogy, that when
Congress grants several charters, we cannot bind Congress by saying that
the rule of
uniformity should be followed in all cases.
MR. RODRIGO: Let me then pursue this point. May Samar and Leyte later on
also be declared autonomous regions, aside from Ilocos and Bicol? And after
that
may Southern Tagalog be declared an autonomous region also?
MR. NOLLEDO: I did not get the question.
MR. RODRIGO: The Gentleman said that under this provision, Ilocos can be
declared an autonomous region with its organic act enacted by the
legislature; the
Bicol region can be an autonomous region, with its organic act enacted by
the legislature. So, I want to pursue this further.
Let us say that Samar and Leyte want to be an autonomous region. Is it
within the power of the legislature to declare them an autonomous region
and enact
its organic act?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is up to the legislature because the question is somewhat
vague in the latter part.
MR. RODRIGO: Is it within the power?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is talking of the organic act and also whether
or not Congress can declare Samar and Layte, whose people are all Warays,
an
autonomous region. Should Congress so decide, why not?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, the two are inseparable, based on the proposed
provisions that an autonomous region is created by enacting an organic act
for that
purpose.
MR. NOLLEDO: And subject to the holding of the plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: All right. How about Central Luzon? May we convert it into an
autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Why not?
MR. RODRIGO: Southern Tagalog?
MR. NOLLEDO: Why not?
MR. RODRIGO: Central Visayas . . . and each of these will have its own
different organic act.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. If one will read the Constitutions of Switzerland, Spain
and other countries I mentioned these some few hours ago one will
notice
that these regions were autonomous and granted separate legislatures and
executive departments.
MR. RODRIGO: Are they granted different autonomous powers, such that
some cantons have more autonomous powers than other cantons?
MR. NOLLEDO: Generally, they have the same powers.
MR. RODRIGO: That is it. Why should we not also make it uniform in the
Philippines, if we are going to have a semifederal system of government?
Why should
we favor one region, giving it more autonomy than another region?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is why we are giving much leeway to Congress to
determine in which provisions there must be uniformity, taking into account
certain
factors, like economic factors, ethnic characteristics and other idiosyncrasies
of people living in different regions.
MR. RODRIGO: So, there might come a time when half of the Philippines is
composed of autonomous regions and the other half not autonomous.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is possible, Madam President, and I dream for complete
autonomy to different regions in the country.
MR. RODRIGO: So, we will have a country which is half semifederal and halfunitary, is that it?
MR. NOLLEDO: Because of the provision that before an autonomous region
may exercise its powers there should be a charter to be enacted by the
Congress, it
is up for Congress to create such an alleged anomalous situation. If Congress
so decides that only one-half of the country should be regionalized in the
meantime, then I think there is no constitutional inhibition to do so. We
should consider the fact that there is a need for a plebiscite and there is also
a need for a charter or an organic act to be passed by Congress. Those
factors indicate that possibility, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, half semifederal and half-unitary, depending on Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: In that case, I think the tendency on the part of the other
regions, if other autonomous regions have succeeded in their autonomy,
would be
apply for their respective charters.
MR. RODRIGO: If we want to make our country semifederal, why not make it
obligatory for the whole country to be divided into autonomous regions so
that we
will have uniformity? In that way, there will be no favoritism and we will not
be fragmented.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Constitutional Commission decides, I will be the
happiest man on earth. (Laughter)
MR. RODRIGO: I am asking the Gentleman those questions to underscore the
defects in their proposal.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I take this opportunity to mention some
things that are happening in the unitary system. Please permit me, if the
Gentleman
does not mind.
MR. RODRIGO: I am through with my questions because there are others who
want to interpellate.
MR. NOLLEDO: In the meantime, as a continuing answer to the Gentlemans
questions . . .
MR. RODRIGO: I will listen.
MR. NOLLEDO: I talked to several governors and city mayors. They told me,
Mr. Nolledo, you know, when we go to the national government, we cannot
find the
Minister of Local Governments. Whether he is hiding or not, we do not know.
We go to Malacaang; we do not find the President. The President is away or
they talk to us and we tell them our local problems. They listen to us with
sympathy but it seems that there are no solutions to our problems. We
invoke
certain implementing statutes; they tell us to wait. So, what happens is that
we go back to our provinces and cities completely disgruntled and we
entertain ill-feeling against the national government. We become helpless;
we do not know what to do.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to state that I am in favor of local autonomy. But if
we will have local autonomy, let it be uniform all over the Philippines.

MR. BENNAGEN: Let me just recall what transpired during the first meeting of
the Committee on Local Governments, when the idea of autonomous region
was
first mentioned.
I remember General de Castro reacting in the same manner that many of us
are now reacting. And he said something like: What will prevent the other
regions
from asking for autonomy? I think my immediate answer was something like
this: Just because we have a law on divorce does not mean that everyone
will seek
divorce. It depends on whether or not the relationship will be so maintained,
so that it is mutually beneficial. And we are saying that the grant of
regional autonomy here corrects an extremely uneven development across
regions. We feel that the creation of regional autonomy will create a
sufficient
tension between regions, on one hand, and central government, on the
other. That some kind of evening of the development process will take place.
We are saying that the regional autonomy structure will facilitate that
catching up with the development process in the more developed regions,
because the
regional autonomy structure will be more responsive to the particularities of
the region, both culturally and geographically, which is to say ecologically.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
Would the Committee clarify certain matters?
MR. DAVIDE: When the Committee speaks of autonomous region, could a
region be any of the 13 regions now? Could it also be the traditional regions
Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is possible, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: It could also be possible that a region which may be constituted
under this is only a portion of any of the 13 regions.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is possible.
MR. DAVIDE: Since it could be possible that a region which was contemplated
here may be a portion of any of the existing region, it could only be a
province.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a possibility.
MR. DAVIDE: In short, Cebu can apply as an autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman will notice that the provisions state: The
legislature shall create autonomous regions consisting of provinces and cities
with
common historical . . . It will be noticed also that in the statutory
construction, the plural includes the singular and/or vice-versa. So I would
consider that there is a possibility.
MR. DAVIDE: That is the possibility. There is also a rule in statutory
construction that the plural can include the singular.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I agree.
MR. DAVIDE: So, under this proposal, Negros can also apply as a distinct
autonomous region.
MR. DAVIDE: Any province can apply, as a matter of fact.
MR. NOLLEDO: In fact, I heard from many economists that they would like
each province to be considered an autonomous region. In our Committee, we
received
several letters to that effect.
MR. DAVIDE: As matter of fact, any of the islands belonging to a subprovince
in Leyte, like the island of Maripeti, which is a subprovince of Biliran, can
also apply as an autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I answer that, it will be noticed that in Switzerland we
also have the cantons which are very small, and within the canton there is
economic progress. We also have the so-called semi-canton in answer to the
question of Commissioner Rodrigo. So, there are so many ramifications
involved
in an autonomous government.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, under the proposal semiautonomous regions
may be created.
MR. NOLLEDO: That seems to be discretionary with Congress.
MR. DAVIDE: But Congress is not prohibited?
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not. In other words, Congress can expand the territorial and
political subdivisions as provided for in the Constitution.
MR. NOLLEDO: Subject to the plebiscite as required by the provisions of
Section 3 of Committee Report No. 21.
MR. DAVIDE: So, is it the position of the Gentleman that an ordinary law can
be enacted by Congress, establishing other forms of political and territorial
subdivisions like a semiautonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a possibility.
MR. DAVIDE: By ordinary legislations?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, by ordinary legislation and in answer to the question of
Commissioner Bernas, a charter is an ordinary legislation by Congress.
MR. DAVIDE: Correct. Is it the position of the Committee that an ordinary
legislation can establish a new political unit not included in the definition of
political and territorial subdivisions in a Constitution?
MR. NOLLEDO: When we enumerated the provinces, cities, municipalities,
barrios and autonomous regions as the territorial and political subdivisions of
the
Republic of the Philippines, we took into account the present existing local
government units and the formation of future autonomous regions. The
provisions do not prevent Congress in creating other political units.
MR DAVIDE: What is added are only the words autonomous region. But I
doubt very much if this possibility can be carried out by ordinary legislation
without amending the Constitution.
Anyway, I will go to another point. Under the proposal, there are many
organic acts as there are regions aspiring for autonomy.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is the clear implication of Section 9.

MR. DAVIDE: In other words, the concept of the Committee by an organic act
is not a general organic act applicable to all who might apply to become an
autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, because of the possibility of nonuniformity as already
explained in answer to the questions . of Commissioner Rodrigo. Otherwise,
we
would have adopted the draft of the University of the Philippines
recommending a general enabling act.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, because of possible nonuniformity, it is also
possible that each of these organic acts may differ from the other?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, but not substantially because, as I said, there are
provisions that must necessarily be uniform.
MR. DAVIDE: Since each of these organic acts may differ from the other, each
may also not comply strictly with the requirements provided for in the
proposed section on autonomous regions.
MR. NOLLEDO: What requirements is the Gentleman referring to?
MR. DAVIDE: We have certain rights, prerogatives and restrictions. These are
the standards for the establishment of an autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman must be referring to Section 12 which
provides: Within its territorial jurisdiction, the autonomous region shall have
authority
over the following. In that case, generally, the charter or the organic act to
be granted should substantially set forth provisions covering these
instances set forth in Section 12.
MR. DAVIDE: Is it not just possible that the Constitution mandates Congress
to enact a general regional autonomy code under which regions wanting to
become
autonomous would merely apply? Like in the Local Government Code now, if
a municipality wants to become a highly urbanized city, it can apply after
meeting
the requirements?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, I think in the realm of possibility, that can be done in
terms of the general principles subject, of course, to some kind of provision
that there would be variations to respond to the particularities of the ecology
and culture of the area.
MR. DAVIDE: Under this particular proposal, when will an autonomous region
begin to have a distinct juridical personality?
MR. NOLLEDO: To my mind, juridical personality will begin when all the
conditions required by the Constitution are complied with; namely, when
there is an
organic act and when majority of the voters in the region have opted to
operate under the autonomous government.
MR. DAVIDE: Since this is an organic act, it may also be subject to the
principles of initiative and referendum as provided for in the Article on the
Legislative and, therefore, the law may be rejected or disapproved through a
referendum all over the country. A referendum and initiative operate all over
the country because we require a certain percentage of the total number of
voters at any given time from all over the country. So, an organic act
creating
an autonomous region for a certain particular area may be rejected by the
votes of all the people of the Philippines by way of a referendum.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Gentleman for asking that question because, as
far as I am concerned, there should be an amendment, if necessary, to make
the
creation of an autonomous region an exception to that rule. We did not
foresee that situation. We are grateful to the Gentleman for calling our
attention
to it.
MR. DAVIDE: And similarly it can be amended also through initiative by a
vote of a certain percentage of the qualified electors all over the Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: That would be the inevitable conclusion, if we consider the
charter or the organic act as mere legislation.
MR. DAVIDE: But is it really an ordinary legislation?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not really a part or a supplement of the Constitution which
can be repealed or superseded by an amendment. But even granting that it
is a
part of the Constitution, rather it is supplementary and could only be
repealed or modified by an amendment, the initiative under the Article on
Amendments
can also repeal the same.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: May a portion or a component unit of an autonomous region

secede from the mother unit? For instance, we have an autonomous region
in Central
Visayas, can Cebu secede from the autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 3 can apply to it. Section 3 of Committee Report No.
21 provides:
No autonomous region, province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created,
divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in
accordance with criteria established by law.
It seems to me it is subject to the plebiscite as I already mentioned and that
the questions should fall under this section.
MR. DAVIDE: Under that particular section?
MR. NOLLEDO: If this is complying with the criteria established by law, now
the Local Government Code, and subject to the holding of the plebiscite.
MR. DAVIDE: So, that particular rule will be made applicable to the
autonomous regions.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: So, secession by a component unit is still possible.
MR. NOLLEDO: Of the autonomous regions?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Subject to the conditions already stated therein.
MR. DAVIDE: But there is no specific proposal now of the Committee
regarding the applicability of that rule to autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: There is none.
MR. DAVIDE: Anyway, since there is a plebiscite to be conducted before an
autonomous region can come into being meaning to say, it is the approval
in the
plebiscite that establishes the commencement of the juridical personality of
an autonomous region suppose in a particular area, which is supposed to
be
included in the autonomous region, the people rejected the proposal of the
autonomy, can that particular area now be compelled to join the autonomous
region? A specific example is Central Visayas.
MR. NOLLEDO: I know that because we considered that possibility. It seems
to me that presents a complication, but as far as we are concerned, we
believe
that we decide on whether or not the plebiscite is in favor of the creation of
an autonomous region by taking into account the entire voting within the
region.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but that would be imposing the will of others on the will of
the people in a particular component unit. In this specific example, there is
a move to establish an autonomous region in Central Visayas, composed
merely of four provinces Siquijor, Negros Oriental, Bohol and Cebu. But
almost
one-half of the total voting population of the entire region comes from Cebu
and Cebu rejects the proposal or it does not want to join. Would the
Gentleman
now consider Cebu, bound by the entire votes of the other provinces, and
compel Cebu to become a member of that autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a very good questions Madam President, but I will tell
the Gentleman my own opinion without binding the Committee. Because of
the
democratic process of being bound by the majority, then Cebu must comply.
However, Congress itself may lay down certain conditions that if any
province or
any unit so decides not to join the autonomous region, that decision should
be respected. It is possible that Congress may lay down the condition in the
organic act.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you for that information because at the appropriate time,
there is a need for n amendment in that respect.
MR. DAVIDE: We will go to the regular local governmental units. Upon the
effectivity of this Constitution, the existing Local Government Code shall
govern
the local government units because, under the proposal, there is no mandate
to Congress to enact a local government code. So, necessarily, the existing
Local Government Code shall continue to govern all these local government
units, except the autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: Except if inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution
that we may approve.
MR. DAVIDE: When the Gentleman says except when inconsistent, would it
mean, therefore, that there is a need to amend the Local Government Code
to a
certain extent?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think it is not necessary. Any provision of the Local
Government Code that is inconsistent with the newly approved or ratified
Constitution
should necessarily be revoked.
MR. DAVIDE: What about the initiative as presently provided for in the Local
Government Code?
MR. NOLLEDO: I ask the Gentleman in return, is that inconsistent with the
provisions on initiative of the legislative department?
MR. DAVIDE: I am asking the Committee about this.
MR. NOLLEDO: Because if there is no inconsistency, then the initiative may
continue.
MR. DAVIDE. So, we will leave it to the Supreme Court to determine?
MR. NOLLEDO: Should there be a controversy.
MR. DAVIDE: What about on referendum?
MR. NOLLEDO: The same answer holds true, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Recall?
MR. NOLLEDO: We did not have any provision on recall because in the 1973
Constitution that provision was authorized to be included in the Local
Government
Code. But I understand that there are some Commissioners who would like to
present amendments substantially the same as the provision of the 1973
Constitution, mandating Congress to enact a new local government code.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Otherwise, the provision on recall may no longer be
available even if it is already provided for in the Local Government Code.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, based on our report but we are expecting an amendment
to reinstate the principle of recall.
MR. DAVIDE: Another point is this Metropolitan Manila Commission of the
metropolitan government. I understand that the position of the Committee is
that
the creation of this government is unconstitutional.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is my personal opinion. I cannot bind the Committee.
MR. DAVIDE: What is the stand of the Committee so we could be guided
accordingly in the presentation of amendments or in voting on this particular
proposal?
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as the members of the Committee are concerned, it is
not necessary to make a stand because we did not adopt the provisions on
metropolitan government anyway.
MR. DAVIDE: By not adopting a provision on metropolitan government, it
would necessarily follow that once approved, this proposal would, in effect,
put an
end or abolish the existing metropolitan government?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that would be the necessary effect.
MR. DAVIDE: The necessary further effect would be that municipalities which
were included under the Metropolitan Manila Commission would then be
considered
returned to their mother units?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is also my personal opinion. But the Commissioner
knows that the mayors of Metro Manila came to see both of us and they are
in favor o
maintaining the geopolitical unit, which opinion I share with. Their existence
can still be justified by Section 5 of our committee report which provides
that local government units may group themselves, consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services and resources for purposes commonly
beneficial to them.
And I would like the Constitutional Commission to know that the mayors of
Metropolitan Manila are in favor of dismantling the Metro Manila Commission
but
that they would like to set up a coordinating agency in lieu of the Metro
Manila Commission under this Section 5 of Committee Report No. 21.
MR. DAVIDE: Under that particular section that the Commissioner has cited,
allowing local governmental units to group together in pursuit of common
objectives for their mutual benefit, would it require a plebiscite? Or is it only
the act of the executives of these local government units?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a very good question. I do not think it requires a
plebiscite.
MR. DAVIDE: In effect there is a confederacy but a very loose confederacy?

MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the Commissioner.
MR. DAVIDE: But in such a particular case the lives or the future of the people
will be affected. Why do we not require a plebiscite?
MR. NOLLEDO: We could not require a plebiscite because the powers of the
coordinating agency involved here are very limited. They refer only to
essential
services like garbage, cleaning of streets, et cetera.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President, and also thank the sponsor.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I just would like to direct some questions
to the Committee. First of all, I would like to say that I am sympathetic to
the idea of regional autonomy particularly for the Muslims and the Cordillera
regions. I would like to raise the questions asked by the UP Local
Government
Center in relation to local autonomy in general. For the information of the
body, the Local Government Center of the UP has conducted research and
training courses for local government officials for several decades throughout
the country and has been in close touch with the local governments at all
levels. The staff of this Center studied very carefully the committee report on
local governments and the first question that they asked had to do with
local autonomy in general, and I quote:
To ensure that local autonomy would help rather than hinder the promotion
of democracy and efficiency at the local, as well as national levels, the State
should undertake political and administrative reforms in local governments
to accompany the promotion of autonomy; otherwise, the grant of
substantial
local autonomy would be a disaster at both levels since it would exacerbate
the problems of local oligarchy, corruption and incompetence while making
the
national policy more vulnerable to centrifugal forces.
There should be separate constitutional provisions against the maintenance
and operation of local political dynasties. For example, an absolute ceiling on
reelection of the same individuals and rules against close relatives teaming
up or alternating in political positions at different levels of government.
There should also be constitutional and statutory provisions for more

effective community control to insure that their local governments are both
responsive and responsible in the broader segments of the community; for
example, popular initiatives in local legislation and recall of errant officials.
The national government should compliment these measures by establishing
clear and coordinated policies and standards by guiding and gauging local
government performance.
What the Center would like to know is whether the Committee is providing
for these areas of concern in the other sections or if it would contemplate on
adding new sections that will take care of these areas of apprehension.
MR. NOLLEDO: We agree with the observations the Commissioner has just
mentioned and we notice that there are two safeguard provisions already
adopted by
the Constitutional Commission. With respect to the policy on recall, we will
welcome any proposal to amend our committee report. I think the
observations
re well-taken.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: This is just an example. There are many provisions now
embodied in the report of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers
designed
to eradicate or eliminate graft and corruption in all levels of government.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you.
I have just one more question Section 9 starts with the sentence The
legislature shall create autonomous regions . . . et cetera. Commissioner
Nolledo
always mentions the Constitution of Spain. If we will notice Chapter 3, Article
143 entitled: Concerning the Autonomous Communities, the auxiliary verb
used may.
MR. NOLLEDO: In what section is that?
MR. VILLACORTA: I am talking about Section 9. Does the Commissioner mean
the Spanish Constitution or his own provision?
MR. NOLLEDO: I have here Sections 135 upwards of the Spanish Constitution
on autonomous communities. What article is the Commissioner referring to?
MR. VILLACORTA: I am referring to Article 143.
MR. NOLLEDO: Article 143 in Chapter 3, and it is entitled: Concerning the

Autonomous Communities.
The Committee is giving the initiative to the legislature, but I notice that in
the Spanish Constitution, the initiative is given to the communities
themselves thereby preventing a situation where to suit the politic interests
of legislators, artificial autonomous regions may be set up.
Paragraph 1 of Article 143 states:
In the exercise of the right of autonomy recognized in Article 11 of the
Constitution, bordering provinces with common historical, cultural and
economic
characteristics, the island territories and the provinces with a historical,
regional entity may accede to self-government and constitute themselves
into
autonomous communities in accordance with the provisions of that title and
the respective statutes.
Paragraph 2 states:
The initiative for the autonomous process belongs to all the interested
deputations or to the pertinent inter-island body, et cetera.
Moreover, I would like to emphasize that the Spanish Constitution does not
use shall but may: There is merit in the usage of may over shall, I
think it says The legislature may create rather than shall create. This
does not make the creation of autonomous regions mandatory inasmuch as
there
were reservations raised by Commissioners Ople, Rodrigo and others about
regions other than the Cordillera and the Muslim regions wanting to be
autonomous.
The use of this auxiliary verb would probably make the intention of the
Committee more flexibly implemented. It may not be wise to mandate the
creation of
autonomous regions for we are either not ready for it or it is simply not
suited for some regions. Autonomy may be suited to those regions wherein
the
provinces or cities have sufficient local government levels. To mandate the
creation of another intervening layer of local government between the
province
and the national government without necessarily taking into account the
specific or special needs of the area may just result in more bureaucracy not
to
mention the waste of resources since the autonomous regions will

necessarily mean the creation of more administrative structures. Lastly, the
second line
of Section 9. . .
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Commissioner please permit me to give my answer to
his first question because he is already proceeding to another question?
I suggest that the Commissioner analyze Article 143, Chapter 3 of the
Constitution of Spain concerning the autonomous communities. The word
may refers to
the provinces, bordering provinces, to the island territories and to the people
applying for autonomy. So the word may is on the part of the provinces
and the people. Here in our provision, it is on the part of Congress, assuming
that there is a corresponding application to create autonomous regions. The
moment there is an application to the Congress of the Philippines to create
autonomous regions, we are mandating the legislature to so create as long
as
the conditions required by the Constitution are complied with. So, the word
may refers to the people themselves. They may or they may not create
autonomous communities. So there is a great world of difference between
Section 9 of our Committee Report No. 21 and Article 143 of the Spanish
Constitution adverted to by the Gentleman.
MR. VILLACORTA: On the contrary, Article 144, if I may proceed, says:
The Cortes Generales, by means of an organic law, may for reasons of
national interest: a) Authorize the establishment of an autonomous
community, et
cetera.
Again, the word may is used here, not shall. Hence, there is always the
use of the word may in order to counter any possible danger of all
communities at all levels demanding that they be considered autonomous.
MR. NOLLEDO: In relation to that, pardon me if I am defending Section 9,
while we use the word shall, in effect, if the autonomous region is not
viable
as stated in answer to the question of Commissioner Romulo, Congress may
deny the grant of an organic act. So there is some discretion left to Congress.
MR. VILLACORTA: Lastly, line 8 of Section 9 of Resolution No. 511 says:
consisting of provinces cities with common historical, geographic, et
cetera. Did
the Committee really want to use the word common or would it had been
clearer if the term distinctive was used? I think any group in the Philippines
can invoke this because we do have so much commonality as far as

historical, geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic and
other
characteristics are concerned. What the Commissioner is referring to are
actually those communal groups or communities that have distinctive
historical,
geographic, and other characteristics.
MR. NOLLEDO: We will consider any amendment to that effect.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Quesada be
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, first of all, I would like to express my
support to the proposed amendment. I feel very strongly that we must
respond to the
people who have expressed such aspiration like the Bangsa Moro people and
the people of the Cordilleras. While it is true that the details on how this will
be operational would still be worked out, I suppose that the brilliant minds of
this Commission would be a great help as the Committee crystallizes some of
those areas which are not anticipated. Such areas may cause possible
confusion, but basically these are the concerns that we hope we should be
able to
respond to.
There are some questions I would like to raise and one would be on Section 2
in relation to the sectoral representation which would be prescribed by law.
At this point, does not the Commission think that there should already be
some kind of a guideline by the Commission on the definition of these broad
categories of sectors to be represented in legislative bodies of local
governments? Just for the record, has the Commissioner expressed the
intendment of
the Commission on such sectoral representation?
MR. NOLLEDO: At the time this was formulated, the Constitutional
Commission has not yet passed even on First Reading the provisions on
sectoral
representation, but we will be guided accordingly in the determination of
what sectoral representation should mean.
We will notice that in the Local Government Code, sectoral representation is

also provided for, but it seems to me that the members representing the
sectors are appointed by the President.
MS. QUESADA: Would the Commissioner consider the classification that we
had in the Legislative which consisted of the peasants, farmers, youth, urban
poor,
women and indigenous communities?
MR. BENNAGEN: That can serve as a broad guideline, but it may not be valid
in certain cases because some regions may not be sufficiently differentiated
as
to allow this kind of representation. I think we will be guided by the
comprehensive investigation of the area with respect to existing sectors.
MS. QUESADA: So, the Commissioner will leave this to Congress to prescribe
what sectors to be included and excluded?
MR. BENNAGEN: Again, in consideration of the existing realities in the
regions, there should be some systematic consultation with the regions.
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Renato
V. Sarmiento.
MS. QUESADA: The second point I want to ask concerns the broad exercise of
general supervision over local governments by the President of the
Philippines.
The Committee mentioned here in Section 12 and this was clearly defined
for the autonomous region but I wonder if this would also hold true for local
governments on line 19, paragraph 7: Establishment, operation and
maintenance of regional health, welfare and other social services. Is the
intendment
of the Committee to have the autonomous region formulate its own
standards and regulations insofar as health, welfare and other social services
are
concerned, or would they be covered by the general standards of health at
the national level?
MR. BENNAGEN: In general, we can say that there must be some general
principles which should guide the implementation of social services at the
various
levels. At the same time, we are saying that the program should also respond
to the characteristics at the local level; for instance, the use of
traditional medicine or, I think more importantly with respect to the
capability of the local regions, there must be some form of sharing with
respect to
taxes to enable the local governments or the regions to maintain a selfreliant social service program.
MS. QUESADA: So that would be in the area of determining the priority or the
program thrust in the autonomous region or even in the local government.
However, I am thinking of certain standards of that expectation and
regulations like if the country aims to reduce the level of communicable
diseases,
would the local governments be able to respond to that national mandate for
improving the level of health?
MR. NOLLEDO: To my mind, the national mandate set forth in the
Constitution should be considered binding. So the provisions on health as we
have already
approved should bind the regional and other local governments.
MS. QUESADA: So, the Commissioner would amenable to qualifying this
paragraph 7 of Section to correspond to what he has placed here which says:
Protection
of the environment in accordance with standards and regulations of the
national government?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MS. QUESADA: Then the third point I would like to reinforce is the item
expressed by the Committee, on Section 8 which deals with local taxes and
the
sharing of the proceeds of the exploitation and development of the national
wealth. I would just like to put on record that there was a resolution also
submitted to this Member the Province of Negros Oriental in relation to their
geothermal resources in the area of Palimpion, Municipality of Valencia,
which they felt did not really improve the development of the province,
although they were hosting such resources. So, this is really to add on to
what
Commissioner Ople already mentioned that a host community does not really
profit from such wealth because it becomes part of the national wealth. I
think
the people of Negros have already expressed this concern that local
government should really partake of the wealth and natural resource that
they have in
their place.
These are all the questions I want to raise and I hope that this body will be
able to really iron out these matters and to consider not to eliminate the
concept of autonomy for the people who have so loudly and clearly
expressed this desire to us.
Basically, this is the peoples cry for self determination that we must respect,
not for those who have not yet expressed such will or aspiration but for
those who have already done so like the people of the Cordilleras and the
Bangsa Moro people.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to express my thanks to
Commissioner Quesada for her sympathetic understanding. Instead of
showing
indifference, she set forth a wonderful rule, that we should find ways and
means by which we can serve our people well because we, the members of
the
Committee, tried our very best and if any of the Commissioners disagrees
with us, then he can suggest to us amendments and will subject ourselves to
the
will of the majority in Commission. The attitude of Commissioner Quesada
overwhelming and I feel grateful to her. I think that should be the attitude of
every Commissioner. Commissioner Quesada has manifested broadmindedness and generosity, as well as magnanimity.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask Commissioner Suarez be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Before Commissioner Suarez
interpellates the members of the Committee, I think Commissioner
Bennagen would like to
say something.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. I think we have moved away a great deal from the
rather innocuous provision on regional autonomy to the rather threatening
concept of
federalism. I think when we were discussing this in the Committee, we had in
mind nothing more than the concrete elaboration of the 1973 Constitution,
Section 11 of the General Provisions thereof, which says:
The State shall consider the customs, traditions, beliefs, and interests of
national cultural communities in the formulation and implementation of State
policies.
While sympathetic in its intent to the very concrete concerns of cultural
minorities, this provision was honored more in the breach. As a matter of
fact,
the commentary on this was put in a bronze plate along the Chico River.
What we are saying now is that we trace historically the evolution of these
various
indigenous cultural communities. We begin to find out that since the Spanish
period, these cultural communities have been integrated into the national
mainstream as collectivities in contrast to the effort of the national
government to integrate Filipinos as individuals. Note that since the
Americans got
in, they carried over the distinctions already made by the Spanish
government in terms of Muslims, non-Christians, Christians, Indios, and
Fieles.
This was further elaborated on by the American government and expressed
administratively in the creation of a number of organizations that deal
specifically with these cultural communities as collectivities, not as
individuals so much so that we have had even after political independence
organizations such as the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes and others which
again separated these groups from the larger Christian lowland population.
In
other words, this has been long in coming. These groups have retained
distinctive characteristics to warrant the proposed amendment expressed
earlier by
Commissioner Villacorta.
The popular definitions of cultural minorities all encompass the fact that they
have been the least westernized. This is a commentary on the degree of
westernization that has taken place amongst the low-land Filipino Christians.
We are saying, therefore, that these groups the people of the Cordillera;
the Bangsa Moro; the Lumad (which is a generic term for the various cultural
communities in Mindanao, as well as the scattered tribes in Mindoro and
Sierra Madre); and the Ati or Negritoes of the Visayas have arrived at a
self-definition which separates them from the overwhelming majority of
lowland Filipino Christians. It is in recognition of this self-assertion of their
peoplehood that we have this regional autonomy provision apart from those
other considerations that have already been discussed such as efficiency,
manageability and all others that could very well apply to local government.
However, regional autonomy specifically responds to these distinctive
features
that have separated them from lowland majorities for so long.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The honorable Commissioner from
Pampanga is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I would like to follow the thrust that was presented by Commissioner
Quesada and confirmed by Commissioner Nolledo that we should be
contributive to this
particular Article. Indeed, it is susceptible to many interpretations. I take it
that the main thrust of this Article is to decentralize the government.
Is my understanding correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Is the Commissioner referring to Section 9?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, practically to Section 9. And the Commissioner would like
to get away from the centralized government initiated by Spain and the
United
States even under the 1935 Constitution?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes; I made the statement here and I know many may
disagree that the unitary system is the cause of all the ills in the country. We
will never
go far if we stick to the unitary system, if we do not keep out of the maverick
shell of conservatism and obsolescence.
Your Committee has been bombarded with questions regarding the possible
proliferation of autonomous regions in our country. But I notice that under
Section. 9, the Committee provided for the common characteristics which
would serve as basis for our legislature to create autonomous regions. Is that
not
correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, but we added the words economic characteristics. We
did not concentrate on the historical, linguistic or ethnic idiosyncracies.
MR. SUAREZ: So, can we clarify this point? When we speak of common
historical, geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal and economic
characteristics within a proposed autonomous region, do we intend all of
these characteristics to coexist, to concur and to coincide together in a
substantial degree?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, because some of them may not concur.
MR. SUAREZ: I see. So it is possible that an autonomous region could be
created and established even if it has only geographic characteristics?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible but if I were the Congress I would go far when
I grant the organic act.
MR. SUAREZ: The same is true with respect to the other characteristics, like
historical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal and economic. They could
exist independently of each other; nonetheless, they could serve as the
bases for the creation of an autonomous region. Is that understanding
correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Bennagen would like to answer.
MR. BENNAGEN: In the history of autonomous regions, there are these
substantial characteristics so enumerated, and to distinguish autonomy from
the concept
of a federal state, we in the Committee say that autonomy refers to regions
that really show distinctiveness with respect to culture and ecology.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the Commissioner would say that in a substantial degree,
all of these characteristics must be common in that autonomous region?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
Under Section 15, the Committee is referring to two proposed autonomous
regions Mindanao and the Cordillera. I heard Commissioner Ople mention
the fact
that the Provinces of Davao, Cotabato and Palawan are not included or may
not be included within the autonomous regions of Mindanao. Is my
understanding in
this regard correct?
MR. ALONTO: Under the Tripoli Agreement those provinces that the
Commissioner mentioned which were originally part of the supposed
autonomous regions to be
established were eliminated by the last regime when it started to put up
these two autonomous regions in Mindanao; namely, Regions IX and XII. But
as far
as this committee report is concerned, these autonomous regions existing
now in Mindanao are considered points of reference only because as we
notice,
Section 16 states that the first legislature under this Constitution shall, within
one year from election of its Members, pass the organic acts for the
autonomous regions of Mindanao and the Cordillera. And in passing the
organic acts by the Congress, this refers back to Section 9. In other words,
this
section does not specifically refer to the autonomous regions now in

existence. Under Section 9, Congress will take into consideration all factors
which
would justify the forming of regions, provinces or cities having common
historical, geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic and
other
characteristics to form one autonomous region. In other words, Congress is
not really bound by the existing autonomous regions in Mindanao when the
organic
acts will be enacted in the future.
I just want to clear up this point because geographically speaking, Mindanao
is composed of many provinces. However, for purposes of this committee
report,
is the Committee envisioning the inclusion or exclusion of Davao, Cotabato
and Palawan so that this would be on record for future legislation?
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
The issue here is not the existing political boundaries but the claim to
ancestral land. At the bottom of the struggles of the people of the Cordillera,
the Mangyans of Mindanao, the Dumagats of Tanay, and much more so in the
case of the Bangsa Moro people is the claim to their ancestral land. Having
said
that, we wish to emphasize that the claim to ancestral land is the claim to
their peoplehood because their peoplehood is based on the land, in contrast
to
the western claim to the land by means of a piece of paper. That has to be
reconsidered apart from existing political boundaries.
MR. SUAREZ: So what is the final answer? Are these three provinces going to
be excluded for purpose of creating regional autonomous regions in
Mindanao?
MR. ALONTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if we read very well these different
sections, we could immediately imagine and conceive that it is Congress that
is
actually going to choose the cities and provinces that will compose the
autonomous regions. Likewise, Congress bound to enact the organic acts
after the
majority of the people would have been brought together in a referendum.
MR. NOLLEDO: In other words, we do not like to mention any statement that
certain provinces are not included or should be excluded because we would
like to
give Congress a leeway to determine what shall compose a particular
autonomous region.
MR. SUAREZ: So, probably, the correct interpretation is regions in Mindanao
instead of regions of Mindanao.
Is that the meaning sought to be conveyed? so because when we speak of
regions of Mindanao the Cordillera, we are referring only to two regions.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that is correct. Incidentally, we wish to declare that
when the period of amendments comes, we would like to amend Section 9 to
change
provinces and cities, which are existing political categories, into AREAS
AND POPULATIONS so that we will not be delimited by existing concepts of
provinces. We feel that the existing boundaries do not represent cultural and
ecological realities, rather they were responses to some political needs and
administrative requirements. We wish to correct that.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you; and I suppose the rule in the case of Mindanao
would apply also to the case of the Cordillera.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: We will not have to mention the provinces composing the
probable autonomous region of the Cordillera . . .
MR. BENNAGEN: . . .where it does not reflect the ecological and cultural
realities.
May we now go to Section 8 referring to proceeds of the exploitation and
development of the national wealth within their respective areas. I take it
that
the word proceeds refers to royalties from the exploitation of the natural
resources in that area.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that would include also special charges and schedule of
fees.
MR. SUAREZ: When we speak of the creation of an autonomous region by
virtue of an organic act that is going to be passed by the legislature, are we
thinking in terms of holding a plebiscite before or after the passage of the
organic act? In other words, in addition to the prior consultations with the
local elective officials, I take it that the people have to be consulted about
the possible establishment of an autonomous region. Will that consultation
be made before or after?
MR. NOLLEDO: Obviously, the consultation should be made before.
MR. SUAREZ: Is it going to take the form of a plebiscite called for the
purpose?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible, should Congress so decide. I have answered
a similar question like this before.
MR. SUAREZ: So, before Congress would initiate the legislation which would
amount to the passage of an organic act, there must first be a plebiscite
called
for the purpose and that plebiscite would have to be conducted in that
particular autonomous region. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would recommend that it be so.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. I think some exceptions have to be made particularly in
the case of the Cordilleras and the Bangsa Moro because of their historical
particularities. In other words, in practice, they have been having some kind
of self-determination, whatever their governments name is, except that we
now call it regional autonomy, and that they have so expressed this desire in
so many ways. I feel that this proposal is even going beyond the spirit of
consultation and initiative. Over the centuries, they have expressed this
initiative or this assertion of right to self-determination to choose their path
of economic, political and cultural development. They have to be considered
as exemptions; but in the future, I would imagine there will be cases of
application for regional autonomy.
MR. SUAREZ: So, in that particular case of the Cordillera and the Bangsa
Moro, the Commissioner will advance the proposition that there is no need
anymore
to call a plebiscite.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is my view.
MR. SUAREZ: So, Congress can immediately enact those contemplated
organic acts.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would even plead that this Commission should declare
both the Cordillera and Bangsa Moro as autonomous regions.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the Commissioner including the Bangsa Moro in that

proposition?
MR. BENNAGEN: I intend to do that.
MR. SUAREZ: And for all the other regions that may have to be established
and declared as autonomous regions, the Commissioner will require, as a
condition
sine qua non, the holding of a plebiscite?
MR. BENNAGEN: I think that is the intent of Section 9.
MR. NOLLEDO: When the Commissioner said that the people of the
Cordilleras have continuously expressed their desire to set up an
autonomous region, he only
expressed his personal opinion?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think a plebiscite would still be necessary. Congress may
require such plebiscite to make the sentiments of the people of the Cordillera
official.
My last question has something to do with Section 14.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 14 is on page 3 of Committee Report No. 25.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. The second sentence disturbs me a little. It states:
When circumstances o warrant, the regional government may establish its
own special forces subject to supervision by the national armed forces and
under
such provisions as the law may provide.
Does not the Commissioner see any danger lying behind this provision? We
might be setting up regional warlords.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner will notice that this was taken from the
Tripoli Agreement but with several conditions set forth therein. In the Tripoli
Agreement there is no qualification whatsoever, but here we have the words
when circumstances so warrant, . . . subject to supervision by the national
armed forces and under such provisions as the law may provide.
In the Tripoli Agreement, there is a statement to the effect that the regional
government shall be authorized to establish its own special forces. In order
that we may temper the fear expressed from different quarters on the
setting up of such special forces, we laid down the following conditions: (1)
when
circumstances so warrant; (2) that they must be subject to supervision or
even control by the national armed forces; (3) that they shall be subject to
provisions of law that may be provided by Congress.
And the Commissioner will notice that the last sentence also states: Such
special forces shall be under the command of the President of the
Philippines.
I know that there are many who are objecting to this; so we will entertain
amendments at the proper time.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
With due respect to the chairman and members of the Committee, I beg to
disagree with the establishment of special forces knowing fully well that in
the
Committee on General Provisions of which I am a member, the CHDF,
categorized as a paramilitary unit, has been dismantled and the provision
therefor has
been transferred to the Article on Transitory Provisions. The activities of
these special forces have led to many things which have been the subject of
so
many complaints including those from the human rights people, resulting in
the constitutionalization of a human rights organization.
However, under the Article on General Provisions, we have what we call the
citizens armed force which may be organized in accordance with law. These
are
the trainees or the reserve officers in the region who may be called to active
duty and may be given certain allowances, and the law will so provide for
their use in the campaign against insurgency.
Also, when we talk of local police agencies here, the provision in the Article
on General Provisions and this is sponsored by Commissioner Natividad
states that there shall be a national police force which should be supervised
and controlled by the National Police Commission. However, Congress may

provide for whatever control there may be for the local chief executive.
The reason here is the professionalization of Police agencies. We know that
the police force has the main duty of maintaining peace and order and
protecting life and property. When we talk of that duty, we are talking of the
lives of the 54 million people and their property.
And so, Commissioner Natividad and I felt that there is a need to
professionalize our police forces if we want our lives and property to be
protected by
the police and if we want peace and order in our country.
If the Committee will permit, Commissioner Natividad and I will propose
certain amendments on this provision at the proper time.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the Commissioner saying that he is with us in expressing fear
and apprehension about the establishment of special forces, the functions of
which are not defined definitely?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes. I had- had very bad experiences about these special
forces from the time I was still a major up to the time I became a general.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: In connection with the issue on special forces, mention was
made of the possibility of resurgence or even the emergence of warlordism
in
certain areas. I think we should look at warlordism from a sociological and
historical perspective. It is not something that is easily given in any
particular region, and apropos of this, I would like to read what Rene
Santiago of the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planning manifested in
our
deliberations:
Warlordism is really a creature of our patronage politics. Whether federalism
will encourage it, more or less, can only be speculated upon. What is clear,
however, is that a centralized form of government forces a President or any
national leader, for that matter, to rely on ward leaders whose main
strengths,
in turn, lie in their access to the national levers of powers; that is, their
ability to lobby for largesse from above. This unholy alliance perpetuates
the underdevelopment of the countryside on two counts: (1) it destroys selfreliance as it fosters dependence on external funding to develop; and (2) it
does not put a premium on performance and on viability.
In addition, I would like to say that the emergence of peoples organizations,
the increasing political awareness and maturity of the people would be a
strong antidote to the resurgence of warlordism where it originally existed,
and its prevention in areas where no such phenomenon has still taken place.
MR. SUAREZ: So the ultimate resolution of this problem will be whether it
benefits the people or not.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: I am referring to the possible creation of special forces.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. I think we should have that foremost in our minds, that
the provisions for autonomous regions should be directed towards the
benefit of
the people in the autonomous region and, of course, not to mention,
maintaining always the complementarity of the autonomous region with the
national
society.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just make one short statement?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: This is on special forces. I heard the distinguished chairman
state that the Tripoli Agreement authorizes the creation or establishment of
special forces. That is not exactly accurate.
The Tripoli Agreement has several items. Among them is the special regional
security forces subject to discussion later on. The Tripoli Agreement does not
provide or stipulate . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: I understand that the conditions under which special forces
may be formed should be subject to discussion. That was made clear to our
Committee by some Muslims who appeared before us.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because when I wrote an article on the Tripoli Agreement
of 1976 I had occasion to read and analyze it. There are many provisions
therein
subject to discussion later on. Among them is the right to set up schools.
Also, the Muslims shall have their own administrative system, financial and
economic system, special regional security forces, and others under Section
14. But these are not so stipulated. They are only to be discussed or
considered later.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Padilla for the enlightenment, because
we were made to understand that the principle was approved but the
conditions were
subject to discussion.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Abubakar is
recognized
MR. ABUBAKAR: There is an apprehension in connection with this
organization of special local forces. The Committee, probably, saw the need
as it applies to
a particular situation. In many provinces, we have the Philippine
Constabulary-INP, but its police force is drawn from outside the province.
Therefore,
while members are there to maintain peace and order, they are not able to
appreciate the local reaction the temperament or the attitudes of the
people.
This could only promote misunderstanding between those who are there to
maintain peace and order and the citizens who are supposed to be protected
by them.
That is why in many places, in case this situation arises, many local or
provincial officials would ask the national government if they can organize in
their own particular province or municipality a force that would understand
the situation there and the people who might be in opposition. This action
will
enable the people to reach an understanding with this special force so as not
to create a situation of actual military clashes. This is in the interest of
the people. We refer to a special force that is not to be used for a special
purpose but one who understands the people because its members are from
the
same place and they know very well the situation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner de Castro is

recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: To allay the fears of Commissioner Abubakar, when the
General Provisions will be discussed, particularly the provision on citizens
armed
force and local police, it will be well-explained that when we talk of such
citizens armed force, we would refer to the reservists in the area.
The reserve officers in the area will be called to active duty pursuant to law,
be given training and will serve their respective areas against insurgency.
Also, there will be a national police force which shall be under the National
Police Commission.
However, when we talk of the local police forces, the members would be
people from the same region or from the same municipality because it is the
intent
that the police must be civilian in nature and in character. So, if
Commissioner Abubakar has a son or a grandson who likes to be a member
of the police
force, he can be enlisted in the police force in the Commissioners region. It
will not be possible under our proposal that a man from Ilocos will go to
Sulu to be a policeman there.
MR. ABUBAKAR: That is correct.
MR. DE CASTRO: In this proposal, a man from Sulu, a reservist, will be
recruited as a policeman or as a member of the citizens armed force to be
trained
and used against insurgency in that area. It will be the officer from Sulu who
will lead the citizens armed force. That is our concept when we talk of
citizens armed forces and a national police force under the direction of the
National Police Commission. Of course, when one is designated or appointed
as
a policeman in his own area, the first thing he will do is to first pass an
examination, more particularly an aptitude test. Next he has to go to the
National Police Academy to train since this is really a requirement for
professionalization. Moreover, all officers from an area shall be graduates of
the
National Police Academy in Tagaytay. Hence when someone goes to his
respective municipality to serve as a policeman, he is already trained and
professionalized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): May we ask Commissioner Suarez
to ask his last question?
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer; I will yield to the others after
this.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I have the floor because this is very
material.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Nolledo is
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: With the kind indulgence of Commissioner Suarez, I have
found the Tripoli Agreement provision which states:
Special, regional security forces are to be set up in the area of the autonomy
for the Muslims in the South of the Philippines. The relationship between
these forces and the central security forces shall be fixed later
That is the provision of the Tripoli Agreement as presented to us by the
Bangsa Moro for the Philippine Constitution of 1986.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: May I go to my last question. Under Section 16, there are
certain periods stipulated within which the first legislature is under obligation
to
pass the organic acts for the autonomous regions in Mindanao and the
Cordillera. Do I take it that per the explanation of Commissioner Bennagen
there is no
need for a plebiscite before or after the promulgation of the organic acts
insofar as the autonomous regions of Mindanao and Cordillera are
concerned?
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: There is a need for a plebiscite within the region to approve
the charter. What I was saying earlier is that we would like to state
explicitly in the Constitution that the Cordillera region, minus the details of
its definition and its charter, and the Bangsa Moro, minus its territorial
boundaries and all that, should be considered autonomous regions, without
saying that the charter of the organic acts will not be submitted to a
plebiscite
or a referendum. This will have to be approved by the people themselves.
MR. SUAREZ: Will there be no need to call a plebiscite for those regions or
political units which may be affected by the establishment of these
autonomous
regions?
MR. BENNAGEN: For the specification of the region?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: There will be a need, but the concept should be there. That
is why we are saying in Section 9, all areas and populations that have
distinctive, et cetera.
MR. SUAREZ: In the case of Mindanao, if we are going to exclude the three
provinces mentioned by Commissioner Ople, are we not going to consult the
people
therein by way of a plebiscite?
MR. BENNAGEN: In the process of defining the boundaries?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: There will be a consultation.
MR. SUAREZ: And these consultations will take the form of a plebiscite?
MR. BENNAGEN: Whatever is appropriate.
MR. SUAREZ: Would this be before or after the promulgation of the organic
act?
MR. BENNAGEN: In the process it should be before, and there is that terminal
act, which would then make the region acquire its juridical personality.
MR. SUAREZ: Suppose the three provinces would object, but the rest of the
Mindanao areas would agree, what would be the result of the plebiscite? How
would
it affect the establishment or creation of the autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: An identical question was asked by Commissioner Davide a
few hours ago, and my answer was that, personally, without binding the
Committee, it
should be considered as a whole, but there is an amendment on how to
resolve such problem to be presented later on. As far as I am concerned and
following
the democratic process, the entire region should be bound by the majority
rule.
MR. SUAREZ: That means if the electorate in the three provinces would be
more than the electorate in the autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: Then the organic act cannot be granted because as a whole
the voters from the three provinces will defeat the need for a majority of all
the
voters within the region.
MR. SUAREZ: Is that the official position of the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is my interpretation now, but I understand that there will
be an amendment to be presented later on.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The Acting Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in view of the time and the fact that we
still have many registered interpellators, may I move to adjourn until
tomorrow
at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the session is adjourn until tomorrow at nine-thirty in
the
morning.
It was 6:23 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 54
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:44 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, called the
session to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Ahmad Domocao Alonto.
PRAYER
MR. ALONTO: Wa qaala Rabbukum ud-uuniii astajib lakum. And your Lord
hath said: Call to Me that I may answer your call . . .
Bismillaahir-Rahmaanir-Rahilim. In the name of Allah, Most Benevolent and
Most Merciful.
We begin in Thy Holy Name, O God, to firm our hope for Thy Eternal Grace.
Al-Hamdu Lillaahi Rabbil-halamin; All Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the
Worlds;
Verily none is worthy of praise save Thou, O God, as Thou, and only Thou, is
the Creator, Protector, Preserver and Sustainer of the Universe.
Ar-Rahmaanin-Rahiim; Most Beneficent, Ever-Merciful;
Thy ever-watchful and inexhaustible grace, O God, is what we need most to
guide us in this period of crises and revolution, of restlessness and anguish,
of
anxiety and frustrations, to light our way amidst our nascent but sincere
effort of nation-building.
Maaliki Yawmid-Diin! King of the Day of Judgment;
We, who are Thy obedient servants in this tiny corner of Thy Universe, O
God, are fully aware and do firmly believe that one day everyone will have to
render account of all his acts to Thee.
Iyyaaka na-budu wa iyyaaka nasta-iin. You alone we worship; and to You
alone we turn for help.
We affirm that none is worthy of worship and devotion, submission and
obedience, and subjection and servitude, except Thou, O God, and we affirm
that we
are Thy worshippers, Thy subjects and Thy slaves; keeping these relations
with Thee and Thee alone; and so we ask Thy help as Thou art the Lord of
the
whole Universe and Thou hast all powers and Thou art the Master of
everything; and verily, only Thee can give us help for the fulfillment of our
cry for
justice, freedom and democracy.
Ihdinas-Siroatal Mustaqiim Guide us to the straight path,
We confess, O God, that events in this country in the past few years have
confused our vision and made us lose sight of the right way the way that
can
lead us aright in every walk of life and can keep us free from errors and evil
consequences and bring success in the end, so Thine Will be done.
Siraatal-laziina an-amta alay-him The path of those whom Thou hast
favoured;
We affirm our commitment, O God, to the ways of those excellent exemplars
of human behavior who have not deviated a jot away from Thy blessed way
throughout the whole course of human history the Anbiyya or the
Prophets, the Siddiqin or the Faithful, the Shuhada or the Martyrs, and the
Salihin or
the Righteous
Gayril-magzuubi alay-him wa laz-zaaalliiin. Not (the path) of those who
earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.
Rabbanaa las tuzig quluubanaa ba-da iz hadaytanaa wa hablanaa
milladuka rahmattan innaka Antal-Wahhaab.
Our Lord! Cause not our hearts to stray after Thou hast guided us, and
bestow upon us mercy from Thy Presence. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the
Bestower!
Our Lord! We pray for Thy guidance in framing the fundamental law of the
land and grant that by it, we can establish Ummattun yaduuna ilal khayr wa
ya
muruuna bil maruuf wa yanhauna anil Munkar. . . a nation that invites to
goodness, enjoins what is right and forbids what is evil. AMEEN. YA
RABBALALA-MIIN.
ROLL CALL

Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present *
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Absent
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present *
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

yesterdays session.
motion
is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
motion is approved.
Reading, Petition and Communications, the President making the
corresponding
references:
RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO CONGRATULATE
SENATOR TAADA.
Introduced by Hon. Villacorta, Muoz Palma, Bernas, Tan, Abubakar, Alonto,
Aquino, Azcuna, Bacani Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Rosario Braid, Brocka
Calderon,
de Castro, Colayco, Concepcion, Davide, Jr., Foz, Garcia, Gascon, Guingona,
Jamir Laurel, Jr., Lerum, Maambong, Monsod, Natividad Nieva, Nolledo, Ople,
Padilla, Quesada, Rama Regalado, de los Reyes, Jr., Rigos, Rodrigo, Romulo,
Rosales, Sarmiento, Suarez, Sumulong Tadeo, Tingson, Treas, Uka and
Villegas.
PETITION
Petition of the Honorable Commissioners Decoroso R Rosales, Jose D.
Calderon, Teodoro C. Bacani, Eulogio R. Lerum, Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Adolfo S.
Azcuna, Teodulo C. Natividad and Jose B. Laurel, Jr., expressing support of the
Petition of the Honorable Commissioners Lugum L. Uka, Napoleon G. Rama,
Florenz D. Regalado, Regalado E. Maambong, Jose N. Nolledo, Ma. Teresa F.
Nieva, Yusup R. Abubakar and Hilario G. Davide, Jr., asking the Committee on
Human Resources to submit to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 a
consolidated committee report.
(Petition No. 2 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Dorentino Z. Floresta of the Knights of Columbus,
Council 3722, Olongapo City, saying that if the Filipino people thru its
President, Corazon C. Aquino, decides to extend the US military bases in the
Philippines, he strongly recommends that the compensation given to the
Philippine government by the U.S. government for the use of the bases be
considered rental and the same shall be increased in accordance with the
prevailing rentals paid by the United States to Spain, Korea, Japan, Turkey,
and Germany; that the Labor Code of the Philippines shall be applied to the
labor-management relationship inside the bases; that criminal offenses
committed by American servicemen must be tried by the Philippine courts;
and that
the Philippine government shall have effective control over the bases
including the operation of business establishments.
Principles.
Thirty-seven letters with eleven thousand seventy-nine (11,079) signatories
with their respective addresses, all seeking to include in the Constitution a
provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from the
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Jaime Z. Bermudez of Agbannawag, Rizal, Nueva Ecija, urging
the Constitutional Commission to include provisions on land reform that
would
enable small landowners to recover their lands from their tenants.
Communication from the Council of the Laity of the Philippines, CAP Bldg.,
372 Cabildo Street, Intramuros, Manila, signed by its President, Henrietta
Tambunting de Villa, seeking inclusion in the Constitution the right to life
from conception and the integration of religious instruction into the
primary and secondary educational system.
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue consideration of Committee Report Nos.
21 and 25 on Proposed Resolution No. 511, the Article on Local Governments.
motion is approved.
The honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on Local
Governments are requested to occupy the front table.
MR. VILLACORTA: In the Reference of Business, there was a petition
submitted by the honorable Commissioner Decoroso Rosales, et al,
requesting the
Committee on Human Resources to submit to the Constitutional Commission
a consolidated committee report. This puzzles the members of the Human
Resources
Committee because we had already a long time ago submitted a
consolidated report. This gives a wrong impression to the public about the
efficiency of our
Committee. We do not fully understand the intention of this petition.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes to check with
the Secretariat.
It was 9:58 a.m.
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, given the stature of our Commission, I
shall try to be as restrained and as respectful as possible. But I would like to
be
just and fair to the members of our Committee on Human Resources who
worked very hard in coming out with a report, which we submitted to the
Commission as
scheduled last July 15, 1986.
Because of the aggressive efforts of one lobbyist, Don Miguel Cuenco, some
Commissioners signed two petitions which came as a surprise to us because
we
feel that after a committee has submitted its report, whatever additional
recommendations Members of the Commission as well as lobbyists may have
should be
presented on the floor. Nonetheless, because we feel that we should be
courteous to our colleagues in the Commission, we responded immediately
to the first
petition of some Members of the Commission.
This first petition basically requested that the teaching of Philippine
geography and folk songs as well as making Spanish an official language be
incorporated in the Constitution. We patiently listened last week in this
meeting we had with Don Miguel Cuenco which I had to adjourn prematurely
because
there was endless talk from this resource person who was not even a
Member of the Constitutional Commission. We are now confronted with a
second petition
asking the Committee on Human Resources to submit to the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 a consolidated committee report. This further puzzles
us. As we
read this petition which was signed by Commissioners Rosales, Calderon,
Bacani, Lerum, Davide, Azcuna, Natividad and Laurel, there is a statement
here that
with the exception of the Honorable Wilfrido Villacorta, Chairman of the
Committee who is Dean of the College of Liberal Arts of De La Salle
University
and the Honorable Serafin V. C. Guingona, Chancellor of Araneta University,
to our knowledge there is no educator in the Committee. Actually, there are
competent educators among the supporters of making English, Spanish and
Filipino continue as the official languages of our country.
This is a very erroneous and unjust statement because aside from
Commissioner Guingona and myself, there are six other educators in the
Committee, namely:
Commissioner Quesada who has been teaching for 16 years; Commissioner
Rosario Braid, for 30 years; Commissioner Bennagen, for 17 years;
Commissioner Uka,
for 30 years; Commissioner Treas, Dean of the College of Law Iloilo
University; and Commissioner Rigos.
I would like to give our fellow Commissioners who signed the petition the
benefit of the doubt. But this is just my plea to our colleagues in the
Commission: Let us not allow one lobbyist to create internal dissension in this
Commission. It is an affront to the integrity of this Commission, and we
would like an explanation from our colleagues about the background of this
second petition.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
In addition to what Commissioner Villacorta said, I just want to ask the ones
who signed this petition whether they read what they were signing before
they
signed. I get the feeling that when they signed this, it is in deference to the
old man who happens to be their teacher in Cebu. As Commissioner
Villacorta
said, we gave in to the request of the lobbyist last week and it was short of
being absurd.
Anyway, I just want to bring this up to avoid cases like this in the future. I
would like to question whether the Commissioners who signed this petition
read what they were signing because some of the things that were in this
particular report are just so absurd they make us look like idiots. It says here:
COMPARING THE SECTIONS WHICH THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
HAS RESOLVED TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION WITH THE
SECTIONS THAT THE AUTHORS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 141 SEEK TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION,
WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THEY ARE NOT CONFLICTING. Therefore,
we, the undersigned
Commissioners, respectfully ask the Committee on Human Resources to
approve the following Articles which we beg leave to discuss one by one.
1. Section 6. The television owned, controlled and/or supervised by the
Government shall accord prime time to Spanish programs.
The Philippine Government shall also have radio broadcasts in Spanish
addressed to Latin America . . .
2. Section 7. For the preservation and propagation of the Spanish language,
the Government shall provide for the teaching of courses on journalism in
Spanish at the University of the Philippines, University of Sto. Tomas, and
University of San Agustin in Iloilo. The Minister of Culture Education and
Sports shall make representations to the Spanish Governments through the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, to open courses on Spanish journalism at the
Centro
Cultural de Espaa in Makati, which is a very good school for the teaching of
Spanish . . .
3. Section 19 of Resolution 451 reads:
A sum of one-half million pesos has to be appropriated for the teaching of
our native songs in the elementary and high school levels . . .
4. Section 13. The President of the Philippines shall create a Board on
Textbooks on Philippine and World Geography to be composed of the Minister
of
Education Culture and Sports, the Director of Coast and Geodetic Survey, the
Director of the Bureau of National Census and a representative of the
Ministry
of Foreign Affairs . . .
5. Section 14. The President of the Philippines shall create an office to be

named as Deputy Minister of Education, Culture and Sports for the Spanish
language and the educational systems of Spain, the Spanish-speaking
countries, including the educational system for the Hispanic Americans in
U.S.A.. . .
6. The Authors of Resolution No. 451 hereby amend SECTION 5 thereof to
read as follows:
SECTION 5. A new Ministry entitled Ministry for the Conservation and
Promotion of the Cebuano, Tausug and the Cebuano in Indonesia is created.
The
President of the Philippines shall appoint the Minister, who shall be a Moslem
Tausug, to represent the Tausugs in the City of Jolo and in the six hundred
islands of the Sulu Archipelago . . .
7. SECTION 9. The teaching of Spanish shall be compulsory in the fourth,
third, second and first years in high school, public as well as private.
Discursos de Malolos y Poesias Filipinas, . . . Spanish grammar . . . shall be
taught compulsory in the second and first years in the high school, public
as well as private . . .
I stood up mainly because while it is the prerogative of private citizens to
petition, I wish that they would think first before signing their names.
Otherwise, what happens is that we do take time out to listen and go through
meetings that are just so absurd they make us look like idiots.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I do not want to go into further
explanations of this. I would like to move that the petition be withdrawn. I do
not want
to go into further explanations not because I have not read the petition; I
have read it but I signed it for it to be heard. And I think it is right that
we should ask the petition to be heard. However, I ask that it be withdrawn
so that it will not cause trouble anymore.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Calderon be

recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Calderon is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I do not deny the right of Commissioner
Villacorta or of any of my colleagues in this Commission to pinpoint a
lobbyist but
I certainly deem it unethical and unkind to mention names, especially if the
person mentioned had an outstanding record as a parliamentarian and as a
patriot. That is all, Madam President.
recognized.
Is this still on the same subject matter?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. I do not mind saying in reply to the
query of Commissioner Brocka that I was one of those who signed the first
petition, not the one under consideration. As a matter of fact, in compliance
with the invitation of the Committee on Human Resources in the last meeting
convened because of that petition and for some other matters in the agenda,
I appeared before the Committee and I would like to confirm that one of the
issues taken up by that Committee in relation to this petition was the
possibility of constitutionalizing the teaching of geography and folk songs at
the
insistence of Don Miguel Cuenco. When he was heard by the Committee, he
insisted that Spanish be used as one of the national languages. Those were
the
issues taken, Madam President.
I had a particular reason for signing the petition because aside from the
issues raised by Don Miguel Cuenco, I was very much interested in the
evolution
of the national language. As a matter of fact, upon my representations and
through the kindness of the Chairman, Commissioner Villacorta, and with the
help
of Commissioners Brocka and Rigos, I was able to convince the Committee to
insert as a last sentence on Section 22 of their report, Committee Report No.
29, the following provision: IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL
LANGUAGE, DUE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE DIALECT AND
LANGUAGES OF THE FILIPINOS
or a statement to that effect. This was approved by the Committee, after
which I felt that my job was finished. But since Don Miguel Cuenco was still
there
and he was insisting on other points, I suggested to the Committee and
this is on record that the teaching of geography was already covered by
Section
3 of the committee report which provides that all educational institutions
should instill political consciousness. I felt that if one wants to be
politically conscious, he should know what is around him and that involves
the teaching of geography.
Regarding the teaching of folk songs, I also made it of record that it is, in
fact, covered by Section 29 of the report which provides that the State shall
support and encourage the development of a Filipino national culture.
Regarding the Spanish language, the Committee was very emphatic in telling
Don Miguel Cuenco that the Committee had already decided that the
national
language would not be included in the committee report. So at that moment,
I felt I had done my job. We heard Don Miguel Cuenco and I thought the issue
was
closed. It is unfortunate that a second petition had been filed here, but I do
not think we should begrudge the other Commissioners for it. Probably the
other Commissioners also have a point to share with the Committee in much
the same way that I did which I shared with the Committee and which the
Committee
kindly acceded to.
That is all I wanted to say, Madam President. I do not think there was any
affront on the part of some Members of the Commission in signing this
petition.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to express, in behalf of the Committee, a desire to
delete or scrap out this second petition because it puts the members of the
Committee in a very disparaging light. It is in that particular kind of tone that
we responded or reacted to this early reading of a resolution that has
been officially entered into the Journal. So, I think it is also but fair to react
because we are very reactive human beings and we feel that this kind of
unjust accusation of being incompetent would have to be corrected
immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: There is still a motion pending before us, the motion of
Commissioner Bacani to withdraw this petition on the ground that it seeks to
require the Committee on Human Resources to submit a consolidated report,
which report, according to Commissioner Villacorta, has already been
submitted
since July 12 and this has been verified by the Secretariat.
Therefore, the Chair finds the motion to withdraw in order.
approved.
(Article on Local Governments)
Continuation
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the Committee on Local Governments is now
ready to continue the deliberation of Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on
Proposed
Resolution No. 511.
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Colayco be recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President. I have a question or two to ask
the Committee. During one of the meetings of this Committee where I was
present, I
remember that a big group of representatives from the Cordillera region was
present. I heard the vehement objection of a group against the position
taken
by the other group for the granting of autonomy to the Cordillera region. This
group impressed me as quite a big one. I suppose that the same can be said
if and when the autonomous region in Mindanao is organized because we
have two groups there: the Muslims and the Christians. Therefore, it is to be
expected that there will be minority groups in each autonomous region.
Under Section 12, we have a list of the areas where the autonomous
government would
have exclusive authority. Among the items mentioned here are communal or
community centers which would be intended for the benefit of the people
living in
the autonomous regions. They would include appointments to the
administrative government; the erection or construction of schools in the
barrios, health
centers and other community improvements.
There is a strong possibility that these minorities may be discriminated
against in the apportionment of the benefits, and the Northern Ireland
experience
shows us that the main problem there is not religion but the treatment of the
Catholic minority in the Northern Irish government. We may have a
mini-Northern Ireland situation here. So, has the Committee any safeguards
in mind that would prevent this situation to take place here?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman will remember that in our report, it is provided
that even if we establish the autonomous regions through congressional
action
the President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over
autonomous regions to insure that laws are faithfully executed; so if there
should
be discrimination on various economic, social and political matters covered
by existing laws, discrimination can be done away with by effective exercise
of
general supervision by the President.
Commissioner Bennagen would like to give further comments on the
question of the Gentleman.
Let me comment first on the observation in one of the hearings we had. The
record will bear me out that the group being referred to by Commissioner
Colayco
is not a big group. They were only seven, and in the deliberations, we did
inquire into the distinction between that group and a similar group actually
bearing the same name. The answer was that there are indeed two groups
bearing the same name with different sets of officers; one is headed by an
anthropologist from Bicol that was the group which was present there
and another headed by no less than a Kalinga himself. Recently, we received
a
joint statement of a Kalinga-led organization, which calls itself the KalingaIsneg Self-Rule Self-Determination Movement, and the Cordillera Peoples
Alliance dated August 5, 1986. To lay this issue down to rest, please allow me
to read the joint statement. It states:
The Kalinga-Isneg Self-Rule Self-Determination Movement (KISSM) and the
Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) express our common position of support for
the
establishment of a regional autonomous government in the Cordillera. We
believe that by uniting the Cordillera people into one self-governing region,
our
rights as indigenous people can be protected and recognized.
We dissociate ourselves from Ms. Mariflor Parpan (this is the lady who was in
that meeting who claims to represent KISSM which is the acronym of the
organization). Ms. Parpan is not a true Kalinga and though she claims to hold
our interests at heart, her actions merely serve to undermine interests at
heart, her actions merely serve to undermine the unity we have built up
through the years. Her words are her own and she cannot speak for the
2,000 members
of KISSM.
We further urge all Igorots to rally behind the cause of self-determination for
the indigenous people and, in his or her own way, to contribute towards the
building of a just, free and democratic society in the Cordillera and in the
country.
For the Kalinga-Isneg Self-Rule Self-Determination Movement this was signed
by Mr. Max Garming who is the Chairman and is connected with the College
of
Public Administration of the University of the Philippines; he is from Bangad,
Kalinga. The other signatory was Mr. Candido Basbasen who is
the-Secretary-General of the same organization and also comes from
Kalinga.
For the Cordillera Peoples Alliance, the signatories are: Fr. Patricio Guyguyon
who is the Vice-Chairman of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance; Ms. Joanna
K. Cario who is the Secretary-Treasurer of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance;
and Fr. Eduardo Solang, Secretary-General of the Cordillera Peoples
Alliance.
As to the question of certain seemingly antagonistic relations amongst
members of the Cordillera people across ili, meaning, village, and across
groups, we can look at this as nothing more than quarrels across villages
akin to quarrels that exist even amongst the best of families. It is in the
nature of social relations that there will always be disagreements, that there
will always be some kind of struggle. But given the history of the peoples
of the Cordillera, this can be resolved given their extremely viable customary
laws. Then, as supporting statement, the one offered by Commissioner

Nolledo, we should see to it that claims of this sort should also be supervised
not only at the local level but also at the national level.
MR. COLAYCO: This thought occurred to me because we have seen it happen
even under the present system of government provinces which are known
to have
voted for the losing party generally do not get goodies from the government.
For many years, Batangas had to do with very bad roads for the simple
reason
that Batangas voted against the President. And this can always happen
under the new setup where people of barrios or cities which may have voted
against
the autonomous form of government may suffer the same thing.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is in the nature of social life. It is not unique to
Batangas or to Cordillera, or to the Bangsa Moro. It is a matter of its being a
general phenomenon.
MR. COLAYCO: That is correct, but what I want to know is, has the Committee
provided for safeguards against this particular danger? This is very
important;
we may be solving one problem but creating others and these problems may
be avoided if the Committee would think of some system introduced into the
form of
the government or into the organic laws to prevent the happening of this
danger.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Commissioner Alonto would like to make
his comments.
MR. ALONTO: Thank you, Madam President.
The question raised by the Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of this
Committee, is a very important one because discrimination is exactly the
cause
of bringing into the mind of those discriminated upon to raise this question of
autonomy.
For historical purposes, the first sector of the Filipino society that raised the
question of local autonomy was the Muslims of Mindanao because they were
victims of a very serious discrimination, not only by the colonialists who were
our masters in the past but even the great majority of the Filipino people
to which they belong. So, this question that the Gentleman raised is a very,
very vital one and should really be eliminated from our society meaning,
the
Filipino society to achieve unity of the different sectors of the Filipino
society so that we can progress faster in our nation-building.
So, for purposes of the record, I would like to refer to a document prepared
and submitted to a government conference called by President Marcos in
1976,
which was actually the first document submitted for the purpose of
structuring an autonomous government for the Muslims of Mindanao. This is
a manifesto
which, with your permission, I would like to read and be made part of the
Record of the Constitutional Commission because this is the one that started
the
idea of organizing autonomous regions in this country in order to solve the
problem of disunity among the different sectors of the society. * This is a
manifesto presented before the Muslim Conference on Government Policies
and Programs for Muslim Mindanao, called by President Ferdinand E. Marcos
and was
held on June 4-6, 1974, more than ten years ago. This is an organization of
Muslims, whose membership throughout the country was over 500,000 at
that time.
The Manifesto states that the Ansar El Islam, a movement of Muslims:
(1) AGREES to the holding of this Conference as it affords the Movement a
chance to declare its stand, along with those of the other sectors of the
Muslim
communities.
(2) STATES that since its founding five years ago, the Movement has been
concerned with the search for a solution to the cancerous problems facing
our
country; and
(3) DECLARES that the only workable solution to the national crisis in relation
with the Muslim communities, short of complete independence for them, is
the granting to them of a complete local autonomy, the following basic
features, among others, to be guaranteed:
a. A defined and guaranteed territorial jurisdiction, and
b. A legislative power to adopt local laws based on the Holy Quran and the
Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).
This has been signed by over 20,000 members of the Ansar El Islam.
Another document was also presented or petitioned to the former President

from the citizens of Mindanao, Sulu, Palawan, Basilan and Tawi-Tawi, which
includes not only Muslims, not only non-Christian tribes, but also Christians
who may be subjected to discrimination as commonly feared if we form, for
example, an autonomous region in Mindanao, majority of whom are Muslims.
This letter or petition to President Marcos endorses that Manifesto. This, I
also
submit, as part of our record. **
MR. COLAYCO: I want the Gentleman to know that in principle, I personally
favor the proposal of the Committee.
MR. ALONTO: Yes.
MR. COLAYCO: But the discrimination I am warning against, at least in
Regions IX and XII, can go both ways where, for instance, if the provincial
government is in the hands of Christians, the Muslims may suffer and viceversa.
MR. ALONTO: That is right.
MR. COLAYCO: So, I think this is a very important matter that should be
looked into by the Committee.
MR. ALONTO: Yes, and I agree with the Gentleman there. Precisely, that is
why I am historically tracing how this came about. It was this discrimination
I
am very sorry to say so that has placed in the minds of the Muslims in
Mindanao the idea to secede from this country. And this discrimination I
am
again sorry to say came from the majority communities of our country,
which are mostly Christians coming from the northern and central parts of
the
Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to propound some questions to
the Honorable Jose C. Colayco.
MR. ALONTO: Just a minute, I still have the floor the Gentleman does not
mind.
MR. NOLLEDO: All right.
MR. ALONTO: It is the fear of many that if we have this autonomous region
for the Muslims in Mindanao, the majority community in that region will
discriminate against the minority who happens to be in the region who in this
case are the Christians. But I think this Constitutional Commission had
already approved several provisions in the Constitution which are a
prevention to any discrimination by any sector of the society.
Aside from that, the report on local governments has a guarantee on no
discrimination against anyone, whether in any city, province, barrio or region
having autonomy.
For the information of the body, one would expect the least Muslim to
discriminate against his co-being within the area which he occupies because,
according to Islam, the basic idea of an autonomy or the value or principle
that God wants us to practice in our life is stated in the Quran which runs
like this: La-Kum dinna kum walya Dinn. This means the way you want to
live life should be completely within your right, but also give me my way.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Colayco already satisfied with the answer?
MR. ALONTO: With the permission of the Chair, and this means live and let
live, if you discriminate against anyone of your community, that is a violation
of the law of God as far as the Muslim is concerned.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I give way Commissioner Bennagen.
MR. BENNAGEN: The issue is of utmost importance to me and I would like to
add a few comments.
We share the apprehension of Commissioner Colayco. I think these
apprehensions anticipate two possibilities: (1) a kind of inversion of the
existing
dominant-dominated relationship; and (2) the possibility of the explosion of
internal antagonisms within Cordillera society and within Bangsa Moro.
I think these are legitimate concerns because history tells us that these are
indeed concrete possibilities. But it is good that this is discussed because
in due time, we will be able to accept amendments towards the end of
arriving at some provisions that seek to manage, as it were, the level of

conflict. At
the same time, we wish to point out that since we argued for regional
autonomy in the name of peace, we cannot reduce social conflict to zero.
What we can
do this is what we hope to receive in due time during the period of
amendments is to provide the mechanisms to reduce the possibility of
conflict to
manageable levels.
MR. COLAYCO: I am glad to hear that. One last question, Madam President.
MR. COLAYCO: The Article gives each autonomous government the right or
the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, et cetera.
Under
present jurisprudential doctrine, there are certain areas where local
governments cannot impose taxes.
Are we to understand that this will give them a free hand?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. However, there should be guidelines that may reproduce
some limitations that are now existing in P.D. No. 231, as amended by P.D.
No.
426, which is the Local Tax Code.
The taxes that cannot be levied by local governments are enumerated in
Section 15. The governors and the city mayors in a dialogue told me that the
right
to levy taxes on the part of local governments is practically negated by many
limitations.
So, I would like Congress to fix only certain guidelines; I do not like the word
limitations, subject, of course, to the approval of this Commission.
Thank you for that question.
MR. COLAYCO: I thank the Commissioner, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Rosario Braid, Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Let me state, Madam President and members of the
Committee, that I am supportive of the concept of local autonomy and the
concept of
federalism. We might, however, have to look for another term since,
according to political scientists, we can never really use the concept of
federalism to
describe our kind of decentralization unlike Germany, the United States and
Malaysia which started out as independent states. We never did, so we may
have
to seek another terminology.
I support autonomy because we can never attain people power in a pure
form of unitary government. But towards this end, we should agree on a
devolution of
power towards self-management. I would like to see that these concerns are
really linked with the concerns in human resource development, particularly
non-formal education; the broadening of educational resources and media
resources; the movement towards greater political awareness, and towards a
new
political culture because if we must have self-management, we should move
away from the present authoritarian culture.
I, therefore, hope that the Committee support the need for this horizontal
and vertical mechanisms which will develop political awareness. We,
therefore,
need more two-way communication between the center and the region. We
regret to say, however, that in the inventory of communication and
educational
resources, we find that they are very heavily centralized. Those that are
decentralized are not tailored to the needs of the region. Many of the existing
mass media in the region are either relay, replay stations and carry news
that are produced in big cities like Manila and Cebu. A priority prerequisite
would be to restructure these information infrastructures as they are
important resources to utilize when we would like to see a devolution of
power.
We are aware that even in rural telecommunications, which are essential
necessary infrastructures, we have very poor systems. In San Carlos, Negros
del
Norte, we have to call Cebu to be able to be connected to Dumaguete which
is just two hours away by land travel. This is the state all over the country. If
we have to work towards more autonomy, I think we should not forget to
emphasize the need for these social services which are often left out.
Looking at the checklist of the areas to be attended to in the attainment of
regional autonomy, non-formal education and information structures are
often
left out.
Lastly, I would like to ask the Committee what they would consider as
prerequisites in the reorganization of political areas into ecological provinces.
This means nullifying the old provincial divisions which were mainly based on
the gerrymandering policies of the old elite and restructuring political
divisions based on ecology and culture and managed according to what we
call the physical or biological environment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, incidentally, Commissioner Rosario Braid is
an author of a resolution advocating autonomy of local governments, and I
fully
support her desire to increase social services in line with the statement of
Commissioner Rama yesterday that regional economy is a must for economic
development.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to ask some clarifications from the Committee. First of all, I would
like to congratulate the Committee for a very splendid committee report
which I really support. I just would like to ask some clarifications.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Azcuna, a distinguished son of
Mindanao.
With respect to local governments, I believe that the local government units
are those mentioned in Section 1 of the Article; is that correct?
MR. AZCUNA: And the President of the Philippines is given general
supervision over all those local government units?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is correct.
MR. AZCUNA: Including the autonomous regions.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is right.

MR. AZCUNA: However, I notice that the phrase shall exercise general
supervision over local government is repeated in Section 4 as well as in
Section 11.
Would that not be a duplication since local government includes autonomous
regions or is it just for emphasis?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think it is for emphasis because autonomous regions
constitute some sort of special local government units. In fact, there is a
move to
separate autonomous regions in this Article from local governments.
MR. AZCUNA: I see. With respect to the creation of autonomous regions, is
my understanding correct that the procedure is for a region to obtain a
charter,
otherwise called an organic act from Congress?
MR. AZCUNA: With respect to two particular proposed autonomous regions,
the Cordilleras and Mindanao, the committee report mandates Congress to
create such
regions by giving them organic acts within one year from the election of the
Members of Congress, is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President, because we expect the people from
the Cordilleras and the people from Mindanao to immediately ask Congress
to grant them
regional autonomy.
MR. AZCUNA: In short, at least with respect to the proposed autonomous
regions of the Cordilleras and Mindanao, there is already a finding that they
would
like to become autonomous regions; but there is no need for them to petition
Congress for an organic act.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, the Gentleman is right.
MR. AZCUNA: However, as mentioned yesterday by the honorable Chairman
of the Committee, the completion of the creation of the autonomous regions
of the
Cordilleras and Mindanao would still need approval by way of a plebiscite of
all the local units directly involved; is that correct?
MR. AZCUNA: With respect to this provision on the definition of the territorial
jurisdiction of the autonomous regions of Mindanao and the Cordilleras
mentioned in Section 16 to be done in not more than six months after the
organization thereof, does that mean that the autonomous regions will be
organized
first and then their territorial jurisdiction defined later, or is that with
reference to Congress?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like Commissioner Alonto to answer that question,
considering that he is the author of this provision.
MR. ALONTO: Thank you.
In Section 10, there is a period of consultation between Congress and the
elective officials of the provinces and cities within the region; meaning, one
of
the implications of this is that those within the region who do not desire to be
included within the region in this consultation, be excluded from the
autonomous region. To give a specific example, Zamboanga del Norte from
which this distinguished Commissioner comes from is included as of now in
Region
IX. Majority of the people of Zamboanga del Norte are Christians. As a matter
of fact, the socioeconomic leadership is hands of the Christians.
There is a possibility that people in this area, majority of whom will turn out
to be Muslims, would not like to join the autonomous region. So, in that
consultation, it could be excluded from the area that is to be determined by
Congress because, in accordance with Section 10 of the report, even the
area
is to be determined by Congress. The area to be determined by Congress is
to be asked later on, after the organic act is passed by Congress for a
plebiscite, whether they will accept that organic act or not.
Those are steps which will guarantee that any autonomous region could not
exercise discrimination against any of these members or inhabitants of the
region
based on the ideological beliefs. So, I think that has been expressed in
Section 10.
MR AZCUNA: I thank the Commissioner.
One final question. With respect to the powers given to an autonomous
region in Section 12, will these powers be uniform for all autonomous regions
so that
there will at least be some common elements in autonomous regions?
MR. ALONTO: That is correct.
MR. AZCUNA: This is the purpose so as not to have diverse power structures
in autonomous regions while allowing for flexibility in subsection 10 thereof.
For instance, under preservation of customs and traditions, and the cultures
of the indigenous communities of the autonomous regions, suppose one of
their
customs is to prohibit the liberty of abode or of changing-the same and,
therefore, it would conflict with the Bill of Rights, which one would prevail?
Would a member of a tribal community who seeks to change his abode
against a custom compel the courts to allow him to change his abode?
MR. ALONTO: The Bill of Rights is general to all.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, so it will prevail over customs.
MR. ALONTO: That is a fundamental of law.
MR. AZCUNA: I thank the Gentleman.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
Will the Committee yield to a few questions?
MR. MONSOD: Yesterday, the Chairman of the Committee enumerated the
advantages of decentralization and the creation of autonomous units and
addressed quite
convincingly the problems attendant to a unitary form of government. I did
not hear the Gentleman mention any disadvantages. Just for the record, are
there
any disadvantages to the creation of an autonomous unit? Would there be
any?
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as we are concerned, if there should be disadvantages,

they are insignificant in the light of the Philippine conditions. So, we
emphasized the advantages. Perhaps, the disadvantages would be on
funding and adjustments. That is the reason we are merely opening the
avenue towards
federalization, but I do not exactly mean federal government like that in the
United States. I mean autonomous regions like in Switzerland, Federation of
Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. That is why when we say that one-half may be
federalized and the other half may not be federalized, then I think that is
normal.
It is not exactly anomalous because that stage will always be reached if the
aim at full autonomy is carried gradually. That is the desire of the Committee
because really we do not have the necessary funding and, perhaps,
expertise; we need some more experience. We mentioned the Cordilleras
and Muslim Mindanao
merely as models. Later on, Congress may decide to create autonomous
regions in other parts of the country should these models prove to be
successful.
MR. MONSOD: I am quite convinced of the sponsors arguments that
autonomy has much more, if not all, the advantages and, therefore, it seems
to me that all
the areas in the Philippines will want the kind of autonomy that the
Committee seems to think should be appropriate for the Cordillera and
certain parts of
Mindanao. My question is, if indeed one of the disadvantages is the sharing
of the costs or the question of funds and all the regions become autonomous,
then we are not only talking about a relationship between an autonomous
region and the national government; we are also talking about relationships
between
or among autonomous regions.
Yesterday, one member of the Committee I believe it was Commissioner
Ople mentioned that one of the benefits that can be accorded to an
autonomous
region is, for example, a rebate on power costs for areas that have a natural
resource in waterfalls. Does the Gentleman envisage a situation as well? Let
us say that the Tagalog region of Southern Luzon and Metro Manila decide to
form themselves into a region and decide to impose countervailing duties on
the
products of the Cordilleras that move to the ports and international airport of
Manila, which would compensate or offset the higher cost of power of the
Manila residents, would that be an acceptable relationship among
autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: In Section 12 of the second part of the report, which is

Committee Report No. 25, when we authorized the autonomous region to
adopt regional
taxation, I think it would be the duty of Congress to study the fiscal effects of
provisions on taxation as contemplated by the Gentlemans question. To my
mind, that might impede the smooth flow of commerce. If I were a Member
of that Congress, I would recommend that such imposition of countervailing
duty be
discouraged and this case can be the subject of the guidelines that may be
set forth by the Congress in authorizing regional taxation to the regional
government. Such a matter can be considered by the Congress in the grant
of the organic act to the particular autonomous region.
MR. MONSOD: But it is possible when the entire country is divided into
autonomous regions that there will be countervailing levies and duties with
this
autonomous region invoking its natural advantages of port or water or
mineral or forest resources.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: My next question is the question of reversibility. In this
section, the Committee talks about autonomous regions being created after
a
plebiscite with the people. As economic development continues, there will be
greater mobility of people. There will be people moving in and out of regions,
migrating and emigrating into regions. And it is possible over time, for
example, that, say, the Cordillera region will have an inflow of people from
other
parts of the Philippines such that the majority may no longer be the cultural
or the indigenous minorities in that area. Is the autonomy of a region
reversible? Can they then vote that they do not want anymore to be an
autonomous region if the pattern or the profile of the voting population
changes over
time?
MR. NOLLEDO: Under the statement that I gave yesterday that the charter is
an ordinary legislation, that is possible, Madam President. That can happen
but
it may happen after several years, perhaps even 100 years, from the time
the organic act is granted to the autonomous region.
MR. MONSOD: In the case of, say, our brothers in Mindanao, for example,
yesterday Commissioner Davide asked questions about the right of a city
within a
region to secede. And if I remember correctly, the Gentlemans answer was
that in his opinion it should be a vote of the entire region. Who determines
the
regional boundaries? Are those the present regional boundaries now in, say,
Regions IX and XII, or are those still to be determined by Congress and to
find
out which?
MR. NOLLEDO: They should be determined by Congress.
MR. MONSOD: So, that is a precondition for Section 16 with respect to the
formulation or the enactment of an organic law.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is right.
MR. MONSOD: My question is within that area now of the autonomous region.
There seems to be an implicit assumption and correct me if I am wrong, I
think
Commissioner Alonto already answered it partly this morning that the
government of the region will be for our cultural Muslim brothers in that area.
Suppose under a principle of universal and equal suffrage, the elective office
of the government of the area is won by Christians. This is also possible,
is it not?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is possible.
MR. MONSOD: And in that instance, would regions then abide to the
customary law of our Muslim brothers or would the civil laws supposed to
apply side by
side and which would be the predominant customary or civil law in that area?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a very good question. The personal laws of the
Muslims should particularly apply to them. The Christians will not be bound.
They will
be bound by the new Civil Code. Incidentally, we still have Presidential
Decree No. 1083 ordaining and recognizing a code of personal Muslim laws.
MR. MONSOD: In other words, the principle of universal and equal suffrage
will be applicable within the autonomous area. There will be no reserve seat
system to protect the rights of the cultural minorities. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: In our report, there is no such kind of system although two or
three Commissioners have told me that they are going to present the
necessary
amendment to see to it that there will be some sort of equal representation
between Christians and Muslims.
MR. MONSOD: So in Section 2 of the Article, when we talk about sectoral

representatives I believe this was raised by Commissioner Quesada
yesterday
this is interpreted to be within the context of the sectoral representatives in
our Article on the Legislative or does this go beyond that to include other
minorities or religious within the autonomous area?
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Bennagen would like to answer that question,
Madam President.
We did say yesterday that we cannot go by the national categories of sectors
because we will have to take a look into the existing social differentiation
in the region, although I understand that there is a propose amendment
coming from one of our colleagues regarding this aspect of representation.
MR. MONSOD: My final question is: Yesterday during the interpellation of
Commissioner Suarez, I believe there was a question regarding the need for
a
plebiscite in all cases and please correct me if I wrong if I remember,
the answer of Commissioner Bennagen was that there would be a plebiscite.
But
it seems to me the answer was that the plebiscite would only be for purposes
of determining the boundaries rather than asking people if they want to be
part of the region. I do not know if I got that correctly or incorrectly, Madam
President.
MR. BENNAGEN: The answer was a plebiscite with respect to the organic act
or charter or whatever it is to be called, but at least in relation to the two
regions that are mentioned, not in terms of whether we should enshrine it in
the Constitution or not.
MR. MONSOD: But can I just ask if, with respect even to the two regions
named in Section 16, the precondition of a plebiscite must be complied with
on
whether they want to be part of the autonomous region or not?
MR. BENNAGEN: Is that the understanding of the Committee?
MB. ALONTO: With the permission of the Chairman, Section 16 refers to
everything that is fundamental in the organization of the autonomous region
and the
population should be consulted on any phase of the autonomous region. And,
as I said, in answer to Commissioner Azcuna, those who do not want to get

into
the autonomous region have every right to do so; that is a personal right,
and I think that should be the case in organizing and restructuring the
different governmental units that constitute the Filipino nation.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I am asking the question because there
seems to be some inconsistencies between the answer of the Chairman
yesterday when he
said that it should be the vote of the entire region. For example, in the case
of Iligan City in Region XII, suppose the residents of Iligan City decided
that they do not want to be a part of the autonomous region and, for that
matter, we may have municipalities, what would happen to those
municipalities?
Would they be allowed to secede or, as the Gentleman said, would their
sentiments of not wanting to be a part of the autonomous region be
respected?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to clarify that. It is really true that I said it should
be the entire electorates will that should be considered because I was
not binding the Committee. It was my personal opinion, but I believe that
there is really a need for an amendment to make that question clearer. That
is
why when that was asked of me by Commissioner Bernas, I said that, to my
mind, there should be an amendment to make it specific. We welcome such
an
amendment.
MR. MONSOD: But an amendment to the effect that the total vote of the
region should be . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: No, no, not to that effect because I emphasized that it could
be interpreted that way without binding the Committee and that is why I said
that we are receptive to an amendment to make it clearer; that if a particular
local government unit does not decide to join the region, I think the will
of the people in that unit should be respected.
MR. ALONTO: Besides that, one must have noticed that when this
autonomous region is to be established, Congress is to have a consultation
with the elective
officers within the area that is supposed to be constituted within the
autonomous region. And in this consultation for example, if Iligan City
would not
like to join the people would be able to express their ideas and their
wishes, and so Congress, in delimiting the territory of the autonomous

region,
would exclude Iligan City.
MR. MONSOD: I do not want to belabor the point, but in designing the organic
law, there would already be preconsultations to find out which people want
to
be part of the region, and after the organic law, there will now be a general
plebiscite to be approved by those people who said that they are willing to
be inside. But I guess my problem is that I do not know if there is an exact
correspondence between the opinions of the officials and the people in the
region. And, therefore, it is possible that in the initial design they would be
included, but the city that is included in the final organic law may, by
vote, say that it is not included. Now, what happens to them?
I think that is my problem in understanding the process, Madam President,
but maybe this can be solved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, if in the final vote they did not express their desire to be
included.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: In which case, their will must be respected.
MR. MONSOD: And within that now predetermined area, on the basis of
consultations, will it be decided on the basis of majority votes for the entire
area or
of province or cities within those areas?
MR. ALONTO: The majority vote in the different units will be included.
MR. MONSOD: I see.
One final question. In the case of the Cordilleras, do I get the answer of
Commissioner Bennagen that there will be a plebiscite as well as a
precondition
for the setting up of an autonomous region?
MR. BENNAGEN: As a precondition for membership in the autonomous
region.
MR. MONSOD: As a precondition for membership?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, and for defining the extent of the autonomous region.

MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, excuse me, before the Floor Leader calls
the next interpellator, I would like to clarify my answer to the question of the
Gentleman about countervailing duty, because his question was premised on
the existence of autonomous regions all over the country, assuming that the
entire country has autonomous regions.
So, I would like to call his attention to Section 13 of Committee Report No. 25
which says:
Without prejudice to the above provisions, and except in areas of legislation
exclusively belonging to the national government such as foreign relations,
the national defense, customs, tariff . . .
These things should pertain not to the autonomous region but to the national
government. Therefore, in that case, the countervailing levy which can be
classified as an additional customs duty under the present Tariff and Customs
Code can be limited by the national government because that function really
pertains to the national government.
MR. MONSOD: With the Chairs indulgence, may I just make one more point.
I was just wondering, while reading through the entire section, why there was
no provision for regional development or regional councils even if they are
not autonomous governments. It seems that the structure of the entire
Article is unitary in form with some local government rights.
And then going to the other mode I do not want to say extreme which is
autonomous regions I do not know if I missed it in the Article I did not
see
the principles of decentralization enunciated, the regional, provincial,
municipal, city levels that would give effect to a decentralization system
other
than an autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: Because we expect Congress to define the government
structure in each political unit and we are giving Congress a leeway to so
organize the
local government units.
MR. MONSOD: So, we are not limited to unitary versus an autonomous?
MR. NOLLEDO: However, we will welcome amendments in that regard.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Natividad be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we do so, may I just acknowledge the presence of
students from St. Scholasticas College and also a delegation from the
Cordillera
region who are here with us this morning.
Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, will the Gentleman of the Committee yield
to a few questions?
MR. NATIVIDAD: The history of local governments shows that the usual
weaknesses of local governments are: 1) fiscal inability to support itself; 2)
lack of
sufficient authority to carry out its duties; and 3) lack o authority to appoint
key officials.
Under this Article, are these three traditional weaknesses of local
governments addressed to?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. The first question is on fiscal inability to support itself. It
will be noticed that we widened the taxing powers of local governments. I
explained that exhaustively yesterday unless the Gentleman wants me to
explain again.
MR. NATIVIDAD: No, that is all right with me.
MR. NOLLEDO: There is a right of retention of local taxes by local
governments and according to the Natividad, Ople, Maambong, de los Reyes
amendment,
local government units shall share in the proceeds of the exploitation of the
national wealth within the area of region, etc. In relation to that, regional
taxation is granted to the autonomous region.
On the second question, with respect to the lack of a governing body with
sufficient authority, because of the mandate to the Congress to create a
government structure in the autonomous region, I think that is partially
satisfied, and we have no express and wider provision here on local
authorities
with respect to other government units believing that the provisions of the
Local Government Code may still apply, subject to change by the future
Congress.
On the third aspect, on the lack of authority to appoint, I think that is very
material and corollary to the second question of lack of governing body with
sufficient authority. These things are addressed to the Congress of the
Philippines when they, as we expect, enact a new responsive Local
Government Code.
MR. NATIVIDAD: What is the Committees idea on how the autonomous
regions are supposed to be governed? Will there be a governor? Section 10,
of course,
says that the organic act shall define the basic structure of government but
as a matter of inquiry, what is the plan of the Committee on this?
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Gentleman for that question because in the
original UP draft, a regional executive council, contemplating a collegial
body, was
put there but our Committee changed that to a regional executive
department, believing that it would be better that the executive head, as
much as
possible, be alone, perhaps assisted by some sort of ministers. The executive
head of the region will be called a regional governor.
With respect to the legislative assembly, it says here that the regional
executive department will be headed by the regional governor and the
regional
legislative assembly shall be elective and representative of the constituent
political units. We are making this a little bit broader in the sense that we
are giving Congress the discretion to determine the details of the basic
structure of government within the autonomous region.
MR. NATIVIDAD: This regional governor will have a term of office. He will be
elected. Is that right, Madam President?
MR. NATIVIDAD: As far as the President is concerned, he has the same
supervisory powers over the autonomous region as well as the other local
government
units.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, only supervisory power and not control. Control may
mean changing certain decisions of the autonomous regions or local
government units.
The supervision there, as defined in many cases by the Supreme Court,
refers only to the duty of seeing to it that the laws of the country, including
the
laws of the particular region, should be faithfully executed.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The heads of the local governments have always agitated for
the authority to appoint officials, such as the provincial treasurers, the
district engineers and the provincial health officers. In the concept of the
Article, will the autonomous region have that authority to appoint key
officials?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President. The Gentleman can present an
amendment to make that emphatic. In our discussion, that was considered. It
will be noticed
that in relation to Section 12 (1), administrative organization, it is the sense
of the Committee that the appointing power, with respect to what the
Gentleman has just said, should be given to the local public officials.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Managementwise and countrywise, would that be good for
the country? This is just for my own satisfaction.
MR. NOLLEDO: In relation to the first part of our report, I would say yes,
Madam President. Of course, that is only persuasive to Congress when they
enact
a local government code because the Gentleman is now asking a question
with respect to local government units other than the autonomous region.
Am I right?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I fully agree with the Gentleman. I support that idea. And
perhaps, an appropriate amendment will be favorably entertained by the
Committee.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Section 13 says that except in areas of legislation
exclusively belonging to the national government, they will be able to
legislate. There
is an enumeration here of the exceptions, such as national defense, customs,
tariff, post and telecommunications. Does it mean that they can legislate
with
regard to police forces? National defense does not mean the police. This
refers to the military.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I answer that question, I think Section 13 should be
read in relation to Sections 12 and 15.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes.

MR. NOLLEDO: And also in relation to Section 14.
MR. NATIVIDAD: That is why I was wondering.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, in general, the autonomous regions have the powers set
forth in Section 12.
In Section 13, the powers of the national government are also stated. All
powers and responsibilities not granted by this Constitution or by law to the
autonomous regions are vested in the national government.
But in relation to Section 14, we said that the maintenance of peace and
order within the region shall remain the responsibility of the local chief
executive of each constituent unit who shall exercise supervision over local
police forces within the region.
In relation to Section 12 (1), my answer to the question is yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If the Constitutional Commission approves a provision,
especially in the Article on General Provisions, laying down the guidelines
and
structure of our police forces, indicating that our police forces are national in
scope with specific powers given to the local executives, will this then
be an exception to that Article? Is that the concept of the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Gentleman does not mind, frankly speaking, there
seems to be a conflict between their report on the Article on General
Provisions and
Section 14 of our report. That is why it seems to me, if the Gentleman is
agreeable, that this question should be submitted to the Commission as a
body in
order to decide once and for all whether or not we return to the local chief
executive the supervision over local police forces, because in our
consultation in some areas of the Philippines, it seems to me that local police
forces would like to be supervised by the mayor for an effective
maintenance of peace and order. Also, with due respect to the Gentlemans
report, I believe that professionalization can also exist even if we give to
local chief executives the power of supervision over local police forces.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I respect the Gentlemans opinion on this, but the reality of
law enforcement is this: We have 1,500 towns and about 63 cities in the
whole
country. Not all of these towns can afford to maintain a decent police
organization. A police organization worth its salt will have to have a training
academy. It has to have a crime laboratory which is expensive. It has to have

a fire department. A fire truck costs P1,600,000 now. A police department
would have to be equipped with standard equipage, meaning, standard
firearms and other equipment. They have to be trained on the same basic
principles in
the performance of their duties, and they have to be paid on time equal
pay for equal work. If we revert back to the conditions of 1965, for example,
where each town or each area is responsible for the whole spectrum of law
enforcement, then it would be very seldom, indeed, to find a town that can
afford
the basic salaries of policemen. If we throw back our memory to those days
when we had 1,500 fragmented police departments, we had police
patrolmen earning
P20 a month and chiefs of police earning P60 a month, which is way below
the minimum wage law, but the towns cannot pay more. So, the situation
now is
this: while we should give a maximum leeway or elbow-room to the local
executives in the supervision of their police forces, they cannot avoid the
help of
the national government because the situation as it is today is, even with the
18 percent across-the-board contribution of the towns and cities, that only
amounts to P200 million. But the budget of the Integrated National Police is
P2.2 billion. So, if we remove the national government from the life of the
police forces of this country, we will automatically revert to that era where
they have to fend for themselves, without the fire trucks, crime laboratories
and the 13 police academies that are training them today. So we in the
Commission cannot close our eyes to that reality because if we remove the
supervision by the President over the police forces of our country, then that
P2.2 billion support for the police will have to be removed.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I ask the Gentleman a question, if he does not mind?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Who shall supervise these police forces assigned to particular
localities under the committee report?
MR. NATIVIDAD: The local executive should participate in the operation. But
the overall administration, such as appointment, would be retained by the
national government. There must be a uniform appointment law, a uniform
disciplinary machinery and a uniform training mechanism. We have 13 police
academies today and one full cadet police academy that graduate students
after four years of cadetship. These, I think, will all be scrapped by this
Constitutional Commission if we so indicate that we are cutting the umbilical
cord of the police from the President. This is a fatal blow to law
enforcement in this country.
MR. NOLLEDO: We have no objection if we can reconcile the Gentlemans

committee report with the provisions of our report.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. The Chairman of our Committee invited representatives
of the Ministry of National Defense, the general staff of the Armed Forces and
the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary and they substantiated and
confirmed what I am telling the body now. So that while I agree that we have
to give
the mayors or the governors supervision over the police forces, I would
advise against cutting off the powers of the President because if the national
government is cut off from the police forces, they would lose P2 billion in
budgetary support. And we will revert to our old system where it is better to
have no police forces than having policeman earning P20 a month. Give him
the gun and give him the power to arrest and you have a danger to society,
not a
protector to society.
I am a member of the Committee and, as I said yesterday, I regret to state
that I do not agree with the honorable Chairman with regard to Section 14. I
agree wholeheartedly with what Commissioner Natividad has said. He knows
this because he was once the Chairman of the National Police Commission.
And I
know it because I was once the Chairman of the National Police Commission.
We are fully aware of the dangers of giving whole control and supervision of
local police forces in the hands of the local chief executive. Our experience
shows that the local police forces are being used by local chief executives
for their own welfare, more particularly when it comes to election.
Furthermore, it is our observation that they are being used as bodyguards of
the mayor
or his wife. Sometimes, a mayor has two wives and these wives have
bodyguards even when they go to market. This is a very sad experience. I
experienced it
myself, Madam President, and, perhaps, Commissioner Natividad has
experienced the same. That is why we are now on the same thinking when
we say that there
is a serious need of professionalizing the police forces because of its very
delicate mission; that is, the maintenance of peace and order and the
protection of the rights and properties of the 54 million Filipinos. That is why I
prepared the necessary amendment to Section 14.

MR. NATIVIDAD: I still have the floor, Madam President, have I not?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Natividad.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Commissioner de Castro said that he does
not like the mayor or the governor to have supervision over local police
forces. But
the Commissioner said that he is in favor of giving supervision to local chief
executives.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, I think we can have a happy meeting ground on this.
But we cannot cut off the national government, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, we will consider that seriously.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Nor can we cut off the mayors completely because they
contribute 80 percent across-the-board from their budget. But the happy
hunting ground
must be located and from our vast experience in law enforcement, I think we
can have our own formula in the Philippines.
So, let me continue, Madam President. Yesterday, I heard the Gentleman
very distinctly when he said that the urbanized cities will vote for the
province.
Is that right?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, for purposes only of voting for provincial officials.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But how about the provincial voters? Will they vote for the
urbanized city candidates and vice-versa?
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so. Will the Gentleman repeat his question
please?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am trying to clarify the causes of the many arguments in
the local governments, and one of these is whether the urbanized cities will
vote
for the provincial candidates. What is the concept in this Article?
MR. NOLLEDO: We did not touch on that, but we are expecting an
amendment from Commissioner Rama. He expressed his idea that there
should be a provision in
the Constitution that the voters of urbanized cities should be allowed to vote
for elective provincial officials.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In that case, I will not pursue the point. I am sure that
Commissioner Rama will satisfy the Commission. I would like to say here that
I am
glad that the Committee has a very favorable attitude towards a viable
police organization in these areas because I do not believe in very radical
approaches which might exacerbate the disorders rather than make our
peace-keeping chores better.
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much, Madam President.
The Committee has completely left out the municipal and provincial
governments in this Article. What happened to them, Madam President?
MR. NOLLEDO: In what sense, Madam President?
MR. BENGZON: I do not find any provision here with respect to the powers
and, much less, any decentralization of powers to the provincial, cities and
municipalities. Did the Committee not consider that?
MR. NOLLEDO: We did not consider that because we, as I said, opened the
avenue for the formation of autonomous regions all over the country, but we
are
receptive to amendments.
MR. BENGZON: Following the sponsors trend of thoughts, if, for example, in
Region I we apply for autonomy and it was granted, what happens to the
various
provinces and municipalities? Do they remain as separate political units
within the region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Do they have their own provincial governors and provincial
board within the region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, although we received a recommendation from many
sectors that the provincial government should be abolished if we should
establish
autonomous regions, but we found that impractical.
MR. BENGZON: I see.
MR. NOLLEDO: And so, we will maintain the provincial government. In fact, in
the government structure, there is a possibility because governors are also
elective officials and the legislative council or legislative department of the
autonomous region may consist of elective officials, like the provincial
governors within the region including the city mayors. Then we will leave
that for Congress to determine.
MR. BENGZON: I also heard yesterday during the interpellation of
Commissioner Rodrigo and others that it is also possible that certain big
provinces can
also apply to become autonomous regions. Do I hear a confirmation from the
sponsor that that is right?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. That was the question of Commissioner Davide because
we mentioned that the autonomous region consists of provinces and cities,
and we did
not mention municipalities anymore because they are deemed included
within the province. And he asked whether a big province can apply as an
autonomous
region.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: On the assumption that we believe in the statutory
construction that the plural includes the singular, I said yes; that is why he
said that
the report is not clear and perhaps a necessary amendment may be
presented later on.
MR. BENGZON: So, if Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur and Abra would petition to
become an autonomous region, that is possible.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible.
MR. BENGZON: I see.
MR. NOLLEDO: They are all Ilocanos.
MR. BENGZON: And, therefore, under this Article, they could also have their
own security forces.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is controversial. We put the security forces there under
the command of the President and subject to regulation by the Armed Forces
of
the Philippines should the Commission decide to approve that provision.
MR. BENGZON: And if this happens, there is a great possibility that a
gentleman from Hawaii may come back because he may petition to have
Ilocos Norte,
Ilocos Sur and Abra as an autonomous region and, therefore, cut up Region I,
not including Benguet, maybe, and Mountain Province. That is a possibility, is
it not?
MR. NOLLEDO: There is a possibility, but that possibility is remote because I
think when the gentleman from Hawaii comes over he will be arrested for the
many crimes that he has committed during his incumbency.
MR. BENGZON: That is assuming that those things are all taken care of.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I consider that possibility. I hope it does not come into
reality.
MR. BENGZON: This Article that we have here does away with the Metro
Manila aggrupation of towns and cities, am I correct? In other words, the
Metro Manila
aggrupation of towns and cities is dissolved.
MR. NOLLEDO: As I said, the existence of Me Manila is sanctioned by
Presidential Decree No. 824, the constitutionality of which was upheld in the
case
Lopez vs. COMELEC and Aralar vs. COMELEC. And so, based on the Article on
Transitory Provisions that all presidential decrees shall exist until repealed or
amended by the forthcoming Congress, then Metro Manila Commission can
exist while P.D. No 824 remains; although I believe that, in my personal
opinion that
P.D. No. 824 is unconstitutional.
In the case of Metro Manila, may I inform the Gentleman that because we did
not adopt the UP draft authorizing the existence of a metropolitan
government,
the Metro Manila government will have no more constitutional basis, in my
opinion, without binding the Committee.
MR. BENGZON: Is it the sense of the Committee then that it is not in favor of
retaining the Metro Manila aggrupation of towns and cities the way it exists
now?
MR. NOLLEDO: We do not favor the retention of the Metro Manila

Commission, but the aggrupation ma exist in view of our recommendation on
Section 5 that
local government units may group themselves, consolidate, or coordinate
their efforts, services and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to
them.
MR. BENGZON: May I know the rationale of the decision to abolish the Metro
Manila Commission?
MR. NOLLEDO: I believe that highly urbanized cities like Caloocan, Manila and
Quezon City should not necessarily form a metropolitan or supergovernment
like what is existing now because of overlapping of functions. I cannot find
sense in the national government giving national aid to the Metropolitan
Commission and the Metropolitan Commission distributing the same to the
local units constitutive of Greater Manila area. In fact, one will find out that
the Metro Manila Commission is a white elephant; it is a financial burden to
the national government.
MR. BENGZON: I only have four minutes to go. I can just discuss this matter
with the sponsor later on because I have resolutions from a majority of the
Metro Manila mayors stating otherwise.
But may I now go to another point, Madam President. I am more concerned
about my region, Region 1, because it does not only comprise of
Pangasinenses and
Ilocanos but we also have people from the Mt. Province and Benguet.
I am made to understand that there are conflicts among the various tribes
within a certain province. If we do give autonomy to certain areas, what
happens
to these conflicts among tribes that are part of a certain province or a
region? Could Commissioner Bennagen enlighten me on that one?
MR. BENNAGEN: These conflicts have been there for centuries but the people
have managed them. I do not see how the creation of an autonomous region
will
interfere in the management of conflicts. At the same time, we are saying
that with the new structure, there is a possibility of introducing some
amendments whereby effective supervision at the national level can at least
mitigate some of the sources of these conflicts. And then also, I imagine that
with greater decision-making powers within the region, both politically and
economically, and I should add also, culturally, these sources of conflicts
should be reduced, and the conflicts themselves ought to be minimized.
MR. BENGZON: I am just apprehensive that we might go to tribal rule, if we

do create an autonomous region comprising of provinces which, in turn,
comprise
several tribes which have their own respective traditional conflicts; and since
these regions are autonomous in themselves, then hell might break loose
and
we might just give way to further accelerated conflicts among and between
the tribes.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think we have answered that earlier, both for the Cordillera
and the Bangsa Moro.
MR. BENGZON: It seems to me that if we are going to approve all of these
subsections from 1 to 10 of Section 10, it strikes me that we are definitely
going
into the direction of an absolute autonomy. Is my impression correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, Madam President, because if we create an
autonomous region, let it not be a cosmetic autonomy because if it is merely
cosmetic, then it is not a real autonomous or independent region.
MR. BENGZON: I am not talking of cosmetics. Certainly, we are not talking of
cosmetics here. We are talking of true and real autonomy.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: But what kind of autonomy is it? Is it an autonomy that would
make this region completely independent? And the way this Section 12
strikes me,
a lot of these provisions have urban and rural development; regional
economic, social and cultural development; they have their own
establishment and
maintenance of schools; the regulation of tourism operation and
maintenance of health.
.So, just to zero in on certain specific items, what happens, for example, if
there is a conflict between a custom in a particular region and the national
planning, more specifically in the development and exploitation of minerals
and natural resources which are located, for example, in these mountainous
areas which may be classified as ancestral lands, and it is shown that the
development of these resources would be better for the improvement of the
country as a whole and of that region in particular? What happens if such
economic development plan would conflict with customs and tribal laws and
traditions? Which would give way?
MR. BENNAGEN: There are a number of possibilities here in terms of

customary laws having the priority over state laws; another in terms of
certain fixed
provisions about sharing, like how much percentage should be left with the
autonomous region and how much should go to the national region; and a
third
would be in terms of more systematic consultation between the national
government and the autonomous region, without necessarily fixing at any
particular
point in time the ratio of sharing.
MR. BENGZON: In other words, it is not the intent of the Committee to follow
and uphold the customs and traditions over the national interest. There
should
be a dialogue and a consultation.
MR. BENNAGEN: Correct.
MR. BENGZON: In the event that this particular group of individuals insists on
their own traditions and customs and, therefore, refuses to let the national
government develop the mountainous mineral areas for the national interest
for example, they may not be agreeable to change what happens now?
Are we
now going to think of the interest of the nation as a whole? Are we going to
give priority to that, for example, the sharing of the fruits and benefits
and, as much as possible, the relocation of these people and ushering them
into a new way of life? But my point is: In a conflict like that, what is the
intent of the Committee? Which interest should prevail?
MR. BENNAGEN: Again, as pointed out in a number of occasions, we see the
absolute refusal of existing communities to yield to what we now label as the
national good or common good, but in the event that it happens, we have to
invoke a number of processes here. One of these would be the supervisory
power
of the President; another is the role of the various regional agencies in terms
of villages and groups.
In any case, in the Cordillera and the Bangsa Moro, as well as the other
indigenous communities, they have a body of traditions that respond to this
kind
of conflict. In the case of the Cordillera and other indigenous communities,
there is a great deal of consensual decision-making going on. I foresee that
this will have to be elaborated within the framework of the national region,
on the one hand, and this autonomous region and the national government,
on
the other hand.
We are saying that we have the cultural basis on which we could elaborate
traditional laws that would respond to new problems. We are not starting
from
scratch.
MR BENGZON: Yes. It does not really answer my question categorically. But I
will leave it at that and, perhaps, we could develop this as we go along in the
There is another apprehension that I have and I would like to find out
whether or not the Committee shares with me such apprehension and, if it
does, what
can be done about it?
I think we are all aware that there are problems in certain areas, both in
Mindanao and up North. And some groups are labeled as rebels; others, as
bandits
or just mercenaries. And the apprehension I have is that if and when we do
grant autonomy to these various regions that may apply to become
autonomous,
these particular groups or bands of people may just work themselves into a
position where they will become the regional security force for their region.
And I guess, we have read in the newspapers and I myself have received
certain reports about the abuses of these people, not only military abuses
but
abuses of these various bands of people. If we accuse the military of theft,
robbery, rape and acts of lasciviousness, I understand that such acts are also
committed by these various groups of people.
So, this is precisely my apprehension. Is there any way by which we can stop
these groups of people who pretend to cooperate with the government but
who
actually would just police their own groups? Is there any way by which these
things can be checked and stopped?
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me elaborate on my earlier answer to the question of
Commissioner Colayco. Essentially, the thrust of the question is the same. I
said
that having argued for autonomy in the name of peace, let us not have the
illusion that everything will be well. The apprehension applies not only to the
Cordillera, not only to the Bangsa Moro but to the whole of the Philippine
society. We should look at this social conflict as structural and historical
phenomenon and could be understood best in a firmer and a more
comprehensive grasp of the processes that lead to this conflict. Therefore,
we cannot just
think of safeguards be they legal, administrative or whatever, without going
into a more comprehensive understanding of the historical and structural

roots
of these. My view is that we should not look at these as phenomena existing
in isolation of the social conditions in the area. We hope that having
responded to the social needs and the historical aspirations of the people,
some of these conflicts will be resolved.
MR. BENGZON: I agree with the Commissioner on that issue.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Commissioner will permit me, I would like to be more
specific.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is asking for safeguards. The
Commissioner will notice the President has supervision over autonomous
regions. Moreover, in
consultation with Commissioners Natividad and de Castro, I think they are in
agreement that the local executive should exercise supervision over local
police forces within the region. Therefore, we are the region the responsibility
of maintaining peace and order. However, in the event that these rebels
should go against their allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I then
cite the provision that the defense of the region shall be the responsibility
of the national police or the army, specifically the army. So it is appropriate
perhaps that the President, in the exercise of his supervisory authority,
may send the army to maintain peace and order if the local authorities
cannot maintain peace and order within the region. So we do not dismiss the
idea of
sending the army, as has happened in certain instances in the United States.
MR. BENGZON: In other words, the Commissioner is in favor of the principle
that we do not cut the umbilical cord nor do we cut the leash.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is correct.
MR. BENGZON: So, there should still be some of control insofar as the
national government is concerned. We should use control not just
supervisory in
order to be able to insure that such apprehensions we have will not happen.
MR. NOLLEDO: That to my mind is an appropriate statement.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.

When there was a discussion on the Lopez decision on the Metropolitan
Manila Commission, I was about to insert some information regarding the
latest
decision of the honorable Supreme Court in the North Negros case, Patricio
Tan, et. al., vs. Commission on Election No. 73155, which was mentioned
yesterday by Commissioner Bernas in some of his interpellations. The
impression of the honorable Chairman is that the Supreme Court has upheld
the validity
of the Metropolitan Manila Commission. That is correct, but that majority rule
I think has been overruled by the North Negros case. In that decision,
mention was made of the case of Paredes vs. Executive Secretary, 128 SCRA
VI. It was the creation of a new municipality from existing barangays. The
court
upheld the legality of the plebiscite which was participated in exclusively by
the people of the barangays that would constitute the new municipality.
There was a strong dissenting opinion by Justice Vicente Abad Santos. And in
the case of Lopez vs. COMELEC, there was again a strong dissenting opinion
especially by Justice Vicente Abad Santos. And in the North Negros decision,
the Supreme Court followed the dissenting opinion in those two cases. May I
be
allowed to quote just one paragraph of this very lengthy Lopez decision, of
which case I appeared as amicus curiae for the petitioner. It says:
The dissenting opinion of Justice Vicente Abad Santos is the forerunner of the
ruling which we now consider applicable to the case at bar. This dissent was
reiterated by Justice Abad Santos. It was assailed as suffering from a
constitutional infirmity a referendum which did not include all the people
of
Bulacan and Rizal when such referendum was intended to ascertain if the
people of said provinces were willing to give up some of their towns to
Metropolitan Manila. His dissenting opinion served as a useful guideline in
the instant case.
So, the ruling now is: In every plebiscite where you cut off some
municipalities to form a province, like North Negros, or even any other
substantial
change in the political unit, the votes in a plebiscite must cover not only the
area affected, but also the entire province of Negros Occidental, because
that dismemberment or exclusion will not only affect North Negros but will
also affect the entire province of Negros Occidental.
Now I would like to ask a few questions.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before asking questions, I hope the Vice-President will permit
me to comment on his statement that the Negros case overruled the Lopez
case
because the dissenting opinion in the Lopez case was adopted by the
Supreme Court in that Negros case.
There is a question on the effect of this overruling of the Lopez case upon the
validity of P.D. No. 824. To my mind, the constitutionality of P.D. No. 824
based on the law of the case doctrine in remedial law will still prevail.
Secondly, we will also notice that in that decision, the Supreme Court did not
rely upon the principle of whether or not there was compliance with the
plebiscite requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that in view of the 1984
Amendments
to the 1973 Constitution which defined the different legislative districts in the
Philippines, the Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent assembly,
recognized the Metropolitan Manila area as comprising the National Capital
Region with a constituent composition. So the basis of the decision is not
only
compliance with the requirements on plebiscite. The legal reason was that
the existence of the geopolitical units known as Metro Manila was recognized
by
the people when they ratified the ordinance appended to the Constitution
which ordinance defined the National Capital Region.
Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: The decision, of course, did not mention particularly the Metro
Manila Commission but it said very clearly:
Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 (that is the law creating North Negros) is hereby
declared unconstitutional. The plebiscite of the new Province of Negros del
Norte, as well as the appointment of the officials thereof, is also declared null
and void.
That is the dispositive portion of the decision. Naturally, said decision could
not declare the other P.D. or the other Batas unconstitutional because it
was not the issue, but the body of the decision made reference to the Lopez
decision and followed the rule stated in the opinion of the dissent.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all?
MR. PADILLA: No, some few questions more, Madam President.
We are in favor of local autonomy to local governments. In fact, the rule is

that the central government or the President only exercises general
supervision, and the principal reason is to have all the laws faithfully
executed as part of the Presidents oath of office. And, of course, those laws
are
national laws, not municipal ordinances.
When we say autonomy, that is not very clear, because even the Tripoli
Agreement which mentions autonomy does not define what autonomy is. I
suppose it
means merely the decentralization of governmental powers in favor of the
local units.
I tried to find a judicial decision on autonomy, and I found in the case of
Villegas vs. Subido, 37 SCRA 1, that local autonomy refers, more or less, to
purely local matters, to lend force, of course, to the legislative moves
enlarging the powers of our local authorities. Decentralization of government
authority practically means the same thing as local autonomy.
I have been hearing the terms self-determination, self-government, and
self-rule. In the opinion of the Committee, is local autonomy the same or
similar to the right of the local governments to self-determination or self-rule
or self-government? I think we have to be careful that we do not identify
local autonomy in local government with those other terms I mentioned.
MR. NOLLEDO: We have never used the term self-rule. The Commissioner
must have read that in the papers. I think when we talk of local autonomy,
we are
talking of effective decentralization, a division of powers. That is why the
Gentleman has to understand our report in the light of the provision that the
President retains supervisory authority over local governments, and that
autonomous regions shall be established within the framework of the
national
sovereignty and respect for the territorial integrity of the Republic of the
Philippines. Then in the light of those provisions, the Gentleman will
understand what we mean by local autonomy.
MR. PADILLA: I am glad to hear that local autonomy under the Tripoli
Agreement recognizes very explicitly within the sovereignty and territorial
integrity
of the Republic of the Philippines. But I have heard especially from
Commissioner Bennagen self-determination.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: Of course, states or nations have the right to selfdetermination. But I do not believe that portions of a nation, like the
Philippines, would
have that right to self-determination. We may have fragmentation.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before Commissioner Bennagen replies, we know we are
lawyers and we know that self-determination, as used by a well-known,
respected
anthropologist, does not have the meaning in the legal way that we see it.
MR. BENNAGEN: No.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: If the Commissioner would allow me one whole day, I will
discuss the relationship between the legal concept of self-determination and
its
human right version as it has developed in recent years, but we do not have
the luxury of time. However, I already outlined yesterday the main thrust of
self-determination as applied to indigenous peoples. I discussed it in its
historical context as well as political, economic and cultural content. I
premised that on the framework of national unity as well as within the
framework of the whole history of the struggles of the Bangsa Moro and the
people of
the Cordillera. I even mentioned that historically, the colonial governments
always treated these groups as collectivities, not as individuals, the way
that lowland Christians were treated. This is why we have had several
government agencies and bureaus that addressed themselves singly to
these cultural
minorities or the taxonomic variations through the centuries. They were
treated as non-Christian tribes. They were treated as infieles. Even up to
now,
they are treated as distinctive groups, as collectivities, not as individuals. We
should take the Office of Muslim Affairs and Cultural Communities which
has two bureaus one for Muslim affairs and another for cultural
communities. In other words, even the national government recognizes their
distinctive
characteristics. When we speak of the right of these people to choose their
own path of development, we mean in terms of their right to determine the
political, cultural, and economic content of this developmental path but
within the framework of the territorial integrity of the Philippine Republic. I
think that is what we said the last time
But I can draw the Commissioners attention to an increasing literature
worldwide which treats of this phenomenon in Canada, in the United States,
in
European countries and all over. Increasingly, international organizations are

supporting this right to self-determination of indigenous peoples. It is not
an altogether new phenomenon except perhaps to the populations who have
been alienated from indigenous cultures that are still extremely viable.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman excuse the Chair. If this takes long, we
might faint.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is what I said earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: Then can we continue this after lunch because we also have
a very important caucus?
MR. BENNAGEN: If that is the pleasure of the President, I thank the Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioners will please attend the close-door caucus
during lunch time at the Southwing Conference Rooms A and B.
We shall continue this matter after lunch.
The session is suspended until two-thirty this afternoon.
It was 12:29 p.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we will continue the consideration of the Article
on Local Governments.
THE PRESIDENT: Would the honorable Chairman, Commissioner Nolledo, and
the members of the Committee please occupy the front table?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Vice-President Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Vice-President Padilla is recognized.
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable
Francisco A. Rodrigo.

I have heard in previous discussions that some people have been blaming
the unitary system even as it existed during colonial Spain and so forth. Does
the
criticism on unitary system mean that we do not want a strong centralized
government?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, because we believe that political power must be shared
with the autonomous regions. It is a sort of shared responsibility. That is why
in
the handouts given to us only this afternoon, it is stated that decentralization
heightens the access of the people to decision or policy-making process.
We will notice that even our government has decided to regionalize all its
agencies and offices. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, the
Central
Bank, and even the Ministry of Trade and Industry are all regionalized. They
have what is known as the regional development council at several levels of
the local government. And so, the national government believes that political
power must be dispersed in order to attain economic and social
development. I
believe that the unitary system I repeat it as many times as I could has
been a failure in the Republic of the Philippines.
MR. PADILLA: There are regional offices of the national departments or
ministries. But it does not mean that we must have a weak central
government
consistent with local autonomy. We may increase local autonomy but it
should not diminish the strength of the central government, especially if we
stress
the unity of the entire country. For example, we have a national economic
development program. That must encompass the whole nation and all our
people. We
cannot be stressing one region as having a preference over other regions.
Does not the Commissioner believe that what we need is more local
government
autonomy but within a strong, united central government?
MR. NOLLEDO: I have to qualify, if the Vice-President does not mind, that we
have to strengthen the local governments within the framework of national
sovereignty without necessarily weakening the supervisory power of the
President over local governments because ultimately, if all these regions
succeed,
the Presidents powers will be fully respected but within the framework also
of authority to set up autonomous regions. We will notice that in Section 12,
the second part of our report, autonomous regions have authority over the
following: regional, economic, social and cultural development subject, as to
economic development, to policies laid down by the National Economic and
Development Authority.
In other words, certain standards set forth by the national government may
constitute the guidelines to economic, social and cultural development
programs
of regional governments.
MR. PADILLA: When we say regional, we really mean the political units of
barrios, municipalities, cities and provinces. But Section 1 of Committee
Report
No. 21 makes reference to provinces, cities, municipalities, barrios and then
they added and the autonomous regions. But we cannot have an
autonomous
region as yet in accordance with the committee report unless there be: First,
a well-defined territory; and second, a plebiscite by all the people
comprising that supposed region to petition and approve an autonomous
region.
Why are we taking for granted and assuming that we will have all these
autonomous regions? The danger, as already explained by various
Commissioners, is
that we may have too many autonomous regions beginning with the Ilocano
region. And this may impair the unity and solidarity of the nation under one
central government by stressing too much autonomous regions.
We agree to grant autonomy to local governments. The 1935 Constitution
had no provision on local governments while the 1973 Constitution provided
that the
National Assembly shall enact a Local Government Code, and that was
realized through Batas Pambansa Blg. 337. Why do we not just say that
Congress will
strengthen this Local Government Code to grant additional powers within the
concept of local autonomy?
MR. NOLLEDO: I am very sorry but our Committee has decided to set up
autonomous regions. When we defined the political units constituting local
governments, we included autonomous regions as one of them in
anticipation of the fulfillment of the mandate that there should be
autonomous regions in
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. I am very sorry, but I beg to disagree
with the Commissioner. That is why we are going to submit this question to
the
body for consideration. I do not believe that there will be disunity if we set up
autonomous regions. The examples of Switzerland, Malaysia and other

countries, including the United States where there is a federal system, show
that autonomy does not sow disunity.
MR. PADILLA: The Commissioner mentioned Malaysia. My understanding of
Malaysia is that there are five or six sultanates there with their respective
chieftains who are called sultans, datus or chiefs. The sultans rotate among
themselves within five years or so the rank or category of king or perhaps
ceremonial president, but the power in Malaysia does not rest on those
sultans. The power is vested in a national assembly and on a prime minister.
I do
not think the parity between the conditions of the Philippines and Malaysia is
obtainable or present equally. Sometimes others talk of Spain but it is well
known that the people of the southern part of Spain, the Vascos, are
separatists, and they have been accused of many plots against the
government of
Madrid. We should be avoiding autonomous regions here and there based on
incidental differences, for other regions may also demand their autonomy
and the
result may be sacrificing the unity and solidarity of the entire nation.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before Commissioner Ople answers the Vice-President, I
would like to mention here that there are state legislatures in Malaysias 13
states.
Each state has its own constitution, legislative assembly and an executive
council headed by a chief minister responsible to the legislative assembly.
There are some states with hereditary rulers. That is what my note say.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I request that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
The particular relevance of Malaysia to the issue at hand has to do with
Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysia is a federal state. In 1963, Sabah and Sarawak
joined
the New Federation of Malaysia. But what is distinctive about Sabah and
Sarawak relative to the preexisting states of the Malaysian Federation is the
fact
that both of them reserved their sovereignty on labor, immigration and
education. So, with respect to these spheres, the federal government has
theoretically no involvement in Sabah and Sarawak, and I think in this
respect we might say that although they are regularly constituted as states
of the
Malaysian Federation, Sabah and Sarawak are more autonomous states than
the other states which were earlier associated with that federation.
I think in the case of China, this is more illuminating. It has a unitary state
unlike Malaysia which is federal, but it has vested autonomous status in
Chingkiang and Tibet. And in most ways, Hongkong is the latest of these
autonomous regions when the treaty with the United Kingdom over
Hongkong takes
effect in 1997, under the motto One country, two systems, because China
is communist and Hongkong is capitalist. Both do not disturb the autonomy
of
Hongkong with respect to the choice of an economic and social system until
50 years from 1997, in accordance with that treaty itself.
In the case of Spain, there is a good warning to the Filipino people. The
chronic unrest in the Basque region is a consequence of the denial of
autonomy to
the Basque nation which is, in most ways, really different from the Castilian
Spanish. So I thought I would contribute this input on behalf of the
Committee.
MR. PADILLA: The Vascos in Spain who are in the southern part have a racial
community with some portions of northern France. They are given autonomy,
but
the problem there is that they consider themselves as entitled to be a
separate state. In other words, they are in a way separatists, together with
some
Basques in Northern Europe. So we should not consider that situation
because in the Philippines, we are all for one united nation, one flag, one
people,
without many distinctions as to temporary or incidental differences in the
different islands or regions of the country.
Section 4 (2) of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution, which is reproduced in
Section 5 of this Article on Local Governments, reads:
Local government units may group themselves, or consolidate or coordinate
their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to
them.
Does not the Committee believe that the different political units beginning
with provinces and cities can avail of this provision in the 1973 Constitution
and repeated in the committee report for a combination, we might say,
among different provinces in the same part of the country, which may
amount to what
we now call or commonly consider autonomous regions? For example,
Commissioner Abubakar says that autonomy in Region IX is working well
under the Tripoli
Agreement. There is a legislative council and an executive council in
Zamboanga City. But these really are only aggrupations of a few provinces.
The fact
is that in every province we have a governor and a provincial board or a
sangguniang panlalawigan. If the legislative council will just be a
combination of
provincial boards or the governors thereof will become members of the
executive council, that could be accomplished within the purview of the Local
Government Code and this provision of the Constitution. In the same way,
the legislative assembly may just be a larger assembly over the municipal
and
provincial legislative bodies. Does not the Commissioner believe that this
could be well implemented within the purview of Section 5?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible. I call that a cosmetic autonomy. And
besides, Section 5 of the first part of our committee report contemplates only
a
temporary aggrupation and the situation covers only essential services. So
the function there is merely for purposes of coordination. The situation is
essentially different and apart from the autonomous region.
MR. PADILLA: Its efforts, services and resources are for purposes commonly
beneficial to them. So that can cover the concept of an expanded autonomy
but
within the local units, particularly the provinces.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Alonto would like to answer some more.
MR. ALONTO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Presiding Officer.
I would like to make a little comment on the remarks of the distinguished
Vice-President of the Constitutional Commission.
In the first place, let us take into account that this appearance of
autonomous regions in the report of the Committee is merely a restatement
of something
that was accomplished by this country through the Tripoli Agreement which
was entered into by and between the regime of President Marcos and the
Moro
National Liberation Front. This was in response to the oppression and tyranny
that the Muslims in this country had experienced, forcing them to go to the
mountains to oppose that regime of President Marcos during martial law
years. In order to eliminate that particular problem, the deposed President
Marcos,
through the help of the government of Libya, tried to negotiate with the Moro
National Liberation Front which, at that time, was mistaken for being a
secessionist group. This negotiation resulted in the establishment of
autonomous regions in Mindanao, a unilateral decision which did not undergo

the
consideration of the finer details of that negotiation. Therefore, as far as the
existence of these autonomous regions is concerned, they are existing de
facto. So the term autonomous regions as embodied in this committee
report is merely a recognition of a de facto existence of autonomous regions
in this
country. But as the Chairman of the Committee has said, this is merely a
cosmetic autonomy because the deposed President Marcos never really
intended to
put up here a real and genuine autonomous region. His purpose was to
deceive the whole Filipino people, particularly the Muslims.
In this case, the establishment of autonomous regions is not for the purpose
of destroying unity among the Filipino people but to strengthen that unity as
one people having one country, one government and one flag.
MR. PADILLA: I am glad to hear that. But does not the Commissioner believe
that the efforts should be more towards representation of, say, our Muslim
brothers, especially in national offices so that they can be heard and
represented, with the ultimate goal of faster integration? And probably,
through
more educational facilities and interrelations, say, mixed marriages, there
will be more representation and more integration.
Would that not be a solution to whatever alleged discrimination or other sins
may be against some sectors which are attributed to the system? Why do we
not
go into this unified central government, with local autonomy, and with some
representation, say, from our Muslim brothers or our Cordillera brothers, so
that their voices can be heard and their interest protected and promoted not
only within their local communities and their autonomous regions, but also
in the higher levels of national authority?
MR. NOLLEDO: May I answer that question?
History has proven that the intention to integrate these members of the
indigenous communities within the stream of national life has miserably
failed.
(Applause)
Is it impossible for us to integrate the Muslims? The move to integrate the
Muslims began during the Spanish regime.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo) : Just a minute, please, the audience is
requested not to make any show of approval or disapproval.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. PADILLA: Let us not talk anymore of the Spanish regime. That was
centuries ago. We are now considering a new Republic which has toppled 20
years of
dictatorial regime.
MR. NOLLEDO: The question of assimilation began during the Spanish
regime; then it continued during the American regime. There was an attempt
by Quezon to
assimilate the Muslims; it was attempted by many past Presidents, and yet
these minorities resisted. I do not consider assimilation a possibility at all.
We have to respect our Constitution of 1973; it contains a provision that we
have to respect the customs and traditions of the indigenous communities.
Likewise, several provisions now appear in the 1986 Constitution to the same
effect. This nation will ever be divided and secession movements may
continue
if we do not recognize the right of indigenous communities to maintain their
customs and traditions. It is high time that we get ourselves out of that
maverick shell of conservatism and obsolescence. I am sorry to say that, but
it really comes from my heart. (Applause)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo) : The Chair would like to call the
attention of the audience to please refrain from any demonstration of
approval or
disapproval.
MR. PADILLA: One last question. Will the Commissioner agree to delete under
Section 14 the phrase may establish its own special forces?
MR. NOLLEDO: I will submit it to the floor. The Committee will insist on its
recommendation. I am sorry because we have met objections thereto by
setting
forth several limitations on the establishment of special forces.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the Chairman of the Committee yield to my questions?

BISHOP BACANI. Commissioner Alonto pointed out that the autonomous
government is already existing de facto by reason of the Tripoli Agreement. I
would ask
how the provinces in these autonomous regions have de facto fared
economically, politically and socially since that time. Has there been a
marked
improvement to justify optimism about the results in the future?
MR. ALONTO: With the permission of the Chairman, I will answer that very
good question. The Commissioner must have noticed in my remark in
response to the
Vice-President that this present status or composition of these autonomous
regions was never presented to the different provinces that constitute these
autonomous regions. In other words, they were established by President
Marcos in the exercise of his dictatorial power. As far as the economic,
political
and social conditions of these existing autonomous regions are concerned,
the conditions are almost the same as those in other parts of the country;
that
is, instead of improving, they have deteriorated as other local units have
experienced during the time of martial law. Hence, these existing de facto
autonomous regions in Mindanao, instead of becoming a solution to the
problem of strongly uniting the Filipino people, has worked the other way
around
because, as the Chairman of the Committee has said, their autonomy is only
in words but not really in practice, considering that even the legislative
assemblies are not empowered to legislate at all.
BISHOP BACANI: So, in fact, de facto means it does not exist?
MR. ALONTO: De facto means it is existing. As a matter of fact, even this
regime has continued appointing officials in these autonomous regions.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. In other words, we really have no experience yet even
in the so-called autonomous regions.
MR. ALONTO: In truth and in fact, we have not exercised any autonomous
authority.
MR. NOLLEDO: In other words, the former President retained his appointing
powers. I just want to cite one provision to show that it was really a
cosmetic
autonomy. Section 32 of P.D. No. 1680 states:
The collection, custody, use, disbursement and accounting of public funds in
the autonomous region shall be governed by laws and regulations which
cover
similar local and national financial transactions.
It was really deceiving. And so, quoting Mr. Michael Mastura: These
autonomous regions were mere monitoring agencies for the President. The
President was
fooling Muslim Mindanao.
BISHOP BACANI: I have another question. There would be an autonomous
region to be formed in Mindanao. But I am told I do not know how
accurately that
there are only three provinces of the 13 provinces originally covered by the
Tripoli Agreement which are predominantly Muslim Sulu, Lanao del Sur and
Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat.
MR. ALONTO: I beg to correct the Commissioners impression. It is true that
not all these 13 provinces are predominantly Muslim, but there are at least
seven Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Sultan Kudarat Maguindanao,
Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi.
BISHOP BACANI: There are at least seven. So are those the ones to form the
autonomous region?
MR. ALONTO: According to the report of the Committee, that depends upon
Congress.
BISHOP BACANI: Let me go to the third question. This is similar to the
question of Commissioner Suarez but I would like to get full enlightenment.
Section
9 has this list of qualities common historical, geographic, cultural,
linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics within the
framework of and respecting the national sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the Philippines.
In other words, these autonomous regions should be characterized by those
aforementioned characteristics. This was asked yesterday: Should all of
these
come together? The answer was: Well, some of them. However, which are
the minimum characteristics that would come together?
MR. NOLLEDO: I must be very frank that the Committee was divided on the
interpretation of this provision. As Chairman of the Committee, the body has
to
pardon me, if I give my opinion without binding those in the Committee who
disagree with me. To my mind, any of those criteria can qualify as a basis to
set up an autonomous region. But as much as possible, considering that we
are mandating Congress to form autonomous regions, it will be discretionary
on
the part of Congress which of these characteristics should come together or
whether a majority of them should go together. So we are giving Congress a
leeway to determine the criteria. As much as possible, a majority of them
should exist. But as pointed out by Commissioner Napoleon Rama yesterday,
other
than linguistic or ethnic characteristics, economic or other characteristics
may be a basis. In other words, I can now conclude that it is up for Congress
to determine the criteria, whether a majority or two or three of these should
exist in order to justify the formation of an autonomous region.
BISHOP BACANI: From this enumeration, may I know the exact meaning of
communal?
MR. NOLLEDO: The word communal was introduced by one of our Muslim
brothers who appeared before us because he thought it could be a basis of,
for
example, Ilocanos going together in forming a regional government. When
we say communal, they have common aspirations, language, et cetera. So,
we do not
need to apply ethnic, historical or cultural characteristics. This term is
broader than cultural, linguistic or ethnic. For example, Ilocanos or
Bicolanos in Central Luzon can ask for the formation of their autonomous
regions because they are bound by communal characteristics.
BISHOP BACANI: My final question is related to what we may be discussing
later on in the Declaration of Principles. Should we talk about the separation
of
Church and State or something along those lines? Within these autonomous
governments, will there be a separation of Church and State? Let me explain
why I
ask that.
Yesterday, Commissioner Uka presented to us excerpts from a paper entitled,
A Primer on the Autonomy. This came from the Mindanao State Universitys
conference of 500 Bangsa Moro national leaders. There is a quotation stating
that Islam is both religion and government. The other one, as quoted by
Commissioner Uka, says:
Islam is the religion and way of life of the Bangsa Moro that require a
separate political or administrative framework from the western concept and
principle of separation of Church and State.
Thirdly, in this paper on the Bangsa Moro we are told some details of the
proposed autonomy. They say that the legislative assembly shall enact
political,
economic, educational and social legislations including the
institutionalization of sharia courts and an internal security force for the
Bangsa Moro
nation in accordance with Islam. In other words, within this framework, there
would seem to be a very close union between the Church and State or
religion
and the State. Should we approve these autonomous governments or these
autonomous regions, we would still be able to speak of the separation of
Church and
State for the entire Philippines or would there have to be an explicit
exception for autonomous regions?
MR. ABUBAKAR: May I answer that?
MR. NOLLEDO: May I just make one statement.
The Committee will deputize the honorable Ambassador Abubakar after a
few seconds. As far as these Sharia courts are concerned, I do not think they
will
infringe upon the separation of the Church and State because those courts
will only enforce the customs and traditions embodied in the Muslim personal
law
as decreed by Mr. Marcos as may be passed by Congress.
May we ask Commissioner Abubakar to comment on that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Abubakar is
recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: It seems that my good friend and colleague has doubts
about the existence of a separation of Church and State in Mindanao and in
Sulu.
BISHOP BACANI: I am only asking a question. I am asking from ignorance
because of the quotations that have been furnished me.
MR. ABUBAKAR: There is an absolute separation of Church and State in the
Muslim provinces. We have the governor for the whole province, the
municipal
mayors for the municipalities, and the councilors or members of the board.
These two bodies legislate: the municipal board for the municipality and the
provincial board for the province.
In recognition of the Muslims right especially of the people of Mindanao
who had at least advantaged position of all the regions because during the
Spanish-American regime they were rather very late in absorbing modern
education and modern practices a department separate from the national
government
was created during the American regime. They called it the Department of
Mindanao and Sulu. For a while, the Executive Secretary was Frank
Carpenter, an
American. But this has passed. Now, there is a complete separation. In a
Muslim province, we have there a governor, municipal mayors and
councilors. The
provincial board legislates for the province and the municipal council
legislates for the municipality. There is no amalgamation or absorption either
by
the State or the Church in their respective spheres of influence. The church
or the mosque is neither built nor administered by the State. Churches are
administered by the Imam who is selected by the Muslim community of that
particular region. The Imam does not receive a penny of contribution from
the
municipal council or from the provincial government.
This practice has been going on since the American regime up to the
present. We have recently instituted the Regional Legislative Assembly which
is
well-known as has been accepted in Mindanao and Sulu. There is a Speaker
of the Assembly and there are regional representatives from the different
provinces like Sulu, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga and other parts of
Mindanao.
So, in that context, we are even ahead of the Constitutional Commission in
legislating for the autonomous region. There is no regional governor. Each
province has its own governor. The municipalities are governed in the same
way the municipalities in Luzon and the Visayas are governed. But while the
Visayas is more advanced and is more adjusted to modern administration
because of the 360-year rule of Western powers first Spain and then the
United
States its orientation is easily understandable from our concept of
constitutional arrangement.
What is now asked for Mindanao is local autonomy in terms of the executive
as well as municipal powers. Actually, we are already enjoying local
autonomy. I
know that because I am a friend of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

for one of the southern autonomous regions. As I have stated before,
Mindanao is
composed of several provinces, the population of which is not predominantly
Muslim. The residents in Zamboanga are in the ratio of 50 to 60. There are
many
Muslims there. Basilan and Sulu are predominantly Muslim, and so on and so
forth. So I cannot understand then what the Commissioners concept of local
autonomy is.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Ambassador Abubakar. Commissioner Alonto will
answer for exactly one minute.
MR. ALONTO: Yes, it is only a few remarks about the separation of Church and
State.
BISHOP BACANI: I am only asking whether this should be part of the
autonomous government setup. I am not even objecting to it. Please do not
misunderstand
me.
The reason is that one of the characteristics cited is common cultural
which, of course, would involve religion. In fact, in one actual proposal, even
the organization of the army will be according to Islamic laws.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Bacani, I think Islamic law will only be a
guiding principle, in the same manner that officials of our government who
are
Catholics are bound by the Catholic doctrines in the discharge of their duties,
without destroying the separation of the Church and the State.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. I appreciate the answer of Commissioner Abubakar, but
he is speaking of the present setup. What I am asking is, in the future, in the
autonomous region that will be set up, will the consequences that I have
suggested come about?
MR. ALONTO: As a matter of fact, the provision on separation of Church and
State is embodied in the Constitution which we are now framing, and which
is for
the whole country, not only specifically for a certain portion. So, since this is
for the whole country and the principle of separation of Church and State
is a general provision, it applies to the entire country; it covers the Republic
of the Philippines. Besides, this doctrine of separation of Church and
State is a western concept that has been brought to us here. In effect, the
Church should not interfere in what is purely a state function, but in the case
of Islam, that does not appear.
BISHOP BACANI: In other words, the Church or the religion can interfere in
State functions?
MR. ALONTO: Yes, because in Islam there is no Church. The State or the
community or the nation is all Islamic if it conforms with the principal
doctrines
of Islam, and so, that does not affect the government. And so, since it is
stated in the Constitution that there is a separation of Church and State, the
Church cannot interfere in what is purely a State affair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Let me respond briefly to the third question of Commissioner Bacani with
regard to the minimum combination of criteria for granting autonomy. The
criteria
should respond to the overall criterion of viability. It is important that when
we look into the geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic and other
criteria, we should examine the interrelationship of these and the issue of
viability. This is important because yesterday, mention was made of even the
possibility of some islands in central Philippines also asking for autonomy.
In various studies of archipelagic states, it is the conclusion that the island
ecosystems are not too viable as independent development units. We are
saying, therefore, that the interrelationship of geographic or, preferably,
ecological, along with cultural to include politico-legal systems and economic
capability, should be seen.
The question of language is to me a secondary issue, in the sense that there
could be several languages within an autonomous region. In other words, the
criterion of history refers nothing more to the temporal processes that link
together ecological capability, cultural viability and economic capability of
the region. That is an important consideration in response to the query of
Commissioner Padilla as to the distinction between autonomy and merely
decentralization of power. There has to be sufficient authority at the regional
level to see to it that this viability is, in effect, realized.
MR. RAMA: In view of the fact that over 25 Commissioners have already
interpellated, Commissioner Maambong said he will set an example and
would demand
only five minutes to interpellate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I will try my best to set an example
but it depends really on the answer to my question. First, my question is on
the
creation of political subdivisions.
I notice that in Section 1, the term barrios is used. I was wondering
whether we could realign this term barrios because this has created a lot of
confusion. In all the laws that we have, for example, in the Local Government
Code Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 we used the word barangay. In P.D.
No.
1508, establishing a system of amicably settling disputes at the barangay
level, we used the word barangay, as well as in all other presidential
decrees
and laws. But, probably, the Committee can address itself to this problem
later on.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to answer that, Mr. Presiding Officer. Our
Committee has decided to change barangay into BARRIO because ancient
documents,
titles, surveys, even names of schools still carry the word barrio. The
Gentleman is only talking of decrees and statutes passed by the Batasang
Pambansa. They can easily be changed. But I think barangay is just a Marcos
invention. The real and original term is balangay.
So, we recommend to the Commission to please revert, for valid reasons and
also for sentimental reasons, to the word barrio.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am open to the suggestion of the Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: But I just want to recall that in my study of history, we used
to refer to the smallest political unit of our country as balangay which is
closer to barangay. Anyway, let us just leave that point.
I will go to the other problem on political subdivisions and I am referring to a
political subdivision not mentioned in the present configuration of the
provision. I am talking about subprovinces which appear to be in limbo.
In the 1973 Constitution, we forgot about our subprovinces. Now, we have

likewise forgotten the subprovinces. I would like to put it on record that we
do
have subprovinces. We have the subprovinces of Biliran in Leyte and
Guimaras in Iloilo. Biliran has more inhabitants than the provinces of Siquijor
and
Batanes combined. How do we treat these subprovinces now?
MR. NOLLEDO: I believe that subprovinces are extensions of provinces. And
when we talk of provinces, extensions are already included. Considering that
the
status of subprovinces is only temporary and they are expected to assume
the full characteristics and status of a province later on, we did not include
such subprovinces as political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines.
But for legal purposes, I would consider them extensions of provinces. And
for purposes of redistricting in the Committee on the Legislative, I would
recommend that subprovinces be considered extension of provinces.
MR. MAAMBONG: Unfortunately, under Section 198 of the Local Government
Code, the existence of subprovinces is still acknowledged by the law, but the
statement of the Gentleman on this point will have to be taken up probably
by the Committee on the Legislative. A second point, Mr. Presiding Officer, is
that under Article 2, Section 10 of the 1973 Constitution, we have the
provision which states:
The State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government
units, especially the barrio, to insure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities.
This provision no longer appears in the present configuration; does this mean
that the concept of giving local autonomy to local governments is no longer
adopted as far as this Article is concerned?
MR. NOLLEDO: No. In the report of the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles, that concept is included and widened
upon
initiative of Commissioner Bennagen.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that.
With regard to Section 6, sources of revenue, the creation of sources as
provided by previous law was subject to limitations as may be provided by
law,
but now, we are using the term subject to such guidelines as may be fixed
by law. In Section 7, mention is made about the unique, distinct and
exclusive
charges and contributions, and in Section 8, we talk about exclusivity of
local taxes and the share in the national wealth. Incidentally, I was one of
the authors of this provision, and I am very thankful. Does this indicate local
autonomy, or was the wording of the law changed to give more autonomy to
the local government units?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. In effect, those words indicate also decentralization
because local political units can collect taxes, fees and charges subject
merely
to guidelines, as recommended by the league of governors and city mayors,
with whom I had a dialogue for almost two hours. They told me that
limitations
may be questionable in the sense that Congress may limit and in effect deny
the right later on.
MR. MAAMBONG: Also, this provision on automatic release of national tax
share points to more local autonomy. Is this the intention?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, the Commissioner is perfectly right.
MR. MAAMBONG: My last point is an issue which is very close to the heart of
our Floor Leader. We have here a provision in the 1973 Constitution, Article
XI, Section 4 (1), which indicates the independence of highly urbanized cities
in relation to the province. This independence is also indicated in
Section 15 of the Local Government Code, and in Section 165 of the same
Code. I would like to point out also that in the case of Ceniza vs. COMELEC ,
L-52304, decided on January 28, 1980, the issue was:
. . . whether the prohibition imposed on voters of highly urbanized cities from
voting in provincial elections subvert the Principle of Republicanism by
depriving them of the right to participate in government through the exercise
of the right of suffrage.
The Supreme Court emphatically said, No, that is not a violation, because
provinces have no jurisdiction over highly urbanized cities. Considering this
particular provision of the 1973 Constitution, together with the provisions of
the Local Government Code and this Supreme Court decision in Ceniza vs.
COMELEC, is the concept on component cities and highly urbanized cities no
longer acceptable in the present configuration of the Article an Local
Governments?
MR. NOLLEDO: That will be the implication because we did not reproduce in
either of our reports Section 4 (1). Therefore, in highly urbanized cities, while
these form part of the province, the people should be allowed to vote for the
elective officials of the province. That is what Commissioner Rama wants to
be included here, and if he presents an amendment to that effect, the

Committee will gladly accept the amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, if that is the present thinking of the
Committee that the voters of highly urbanized cities, like Cebu City and other
cities, will be allowed to vote for their provincial elective officials, will there
be reciprocity if that happens? I mean, will the provincial voters also
be allowed to vote for the elective officials of the highly urbanized cities?
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as I am concerned, unless there is an amendment to
that effect, the reciprocity should not apply.
MR. MAAMBONG: Why not?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is because in the case of the province the inhabitants
thereof have no direct interest in the affairs of the urbanized cities. That is
only
my opinion. I do not bind any member of the Committee nor the Committee
itself. If Commissioner Rama presents an amendment, then he might indicate
reciprocity. I do not know his sense about this question.
MR. MAAMBONG: One final question, Mr. Presiding Officer.
In the creation of local government units, like the barangay, the city, the
municipality, or the province under the Local Government Code, there are
four
criteria: minimum area of territory, population level, average estimated
annual income, and that the new creation should not reduce the population
and
income to less than the minimum of the unit to which it formerly belonged.
Now, in the creation of regional autonomous regions, will the same criteria
be
applied?
MR. NOLLEDO: It will be up to Congress. However, those criteria may possibly
be considered.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized to interpellate
for three minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Sarmiento is

recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer
Before I address a few questions to the Committee headed by the
distinguished Commissioner Nolledo, may I be allowed to say a few words.
First, I am one of those who yearn for genuine home rule and autonomy for
the people of the Cordilleras and Bangsa Moro. Second, although I deeply
appreciate the bold step the radical innovation introduced by the
Committee I have my reservations concerning the giving of autonomy to
many regions
which, in the words of Commissioner Nolledo, will pave the way for a federal
country.
My first question is: Am I correct to say that the Committee, I believe, was
actuated by a desire principally to give autonomy to the two regions when
they
formulated this Article on Autonomous Regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, generally.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I know from the Commissioner the provinces that
would constitute this Cordillera autonomous region and the Bangsa Moro
autonomous
region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Bennagen should answer that.
MR. SARMIENTO: I address my question with respect to the Cordillera
autonomous region to Commissioner Bennagen.
MR. BENNAGEN: The answer to the question was given yesterday, but for
purposes of emphasis, we will gladly answer that. Essentially, as we pointed
out in
answer to the query on the idea of autonomy, we said that the key issue
here is ancestral land rights and not necessarily the existing boundaries. For
purposes of specifying certain clearly bounded areas, the contemplated
autonomous region for the Cordillera would include Kalinga-Apayao,
Mountain
Province, Benguet, of course, Baguio City, the Tingguian area of Abra, the
Province of Ifugao and, if my understanding of the ethnography of the region
serves me right, there will be certain areas in Nueva Vizcaya, Pangasinan, La
Union and Ilocos Sur.
MR. SARMIENTO: Were the people of these places consulted when this draft
article on autonomy was formulated? What was their response?
MR. BENNAGEN: There have been ongoing consultations in the region as well
as consultations in Mindanao. For instance, when two Members of the
defunct
Batasang Pambansa filed proposals for regionalization, there were already
consultations even then, and since then more intensive, more
comprehensive
consultations have been conducted by various groups, professionals and
sectoral organizations. As of the last count, there have been more than
12,000
signatories or thereabouts endorsing the idea of the Cordillera autonomous
region. It cuts across various sectors and it cuts across the various existing
political units.
MR. SARMIENTO: In other words, these people are supportive of this idea?
MR. BENNAGEN: Definitely. But that does not preclude other consultations
later on.
MR. SARMIENTO: What about the Bangsa Moro autonomous region? We were
given a copy of a draft constitution by a group of Muslim students,
academicians,
etc., who said that the Bangsa Moro region shall comprise the provinces of
Palawan, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Basilan, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte,
North
Cotabato, Maguindanao, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Lanao del Sur,
Lanao del Norte and Davao del Sur, including the cities of Iligan, Cotabato,
Marawi,
General Santos, Zamboanga, Pagadian, Dipolog and Dapitan. May I ask
Commissioner Alonto if the people of these places were consulted when this
Article on
Autonomous Regions was formulated? What was their response?
MR. ALONTO: That is a very good question, but I cannot actually tell you now
what are the provinces included because that is within the province of
Congress. In this report of the Committee, Congress will have consultation
with the elected officials of the different provinces and cities and
municipalities in the area. The provinces that were recited are the same
provinces that were included in the negotiation between the government of
former
President Marcos and the Moro National Liberation Front. All those 13
provinces were included in that negotiation. But after the negotiation, when
they
came out with the Tripoli Agreement of 1976, Mr. Marcos unilaterally
implemented that negotiation and organized the two existing autonomous

regions of
Mindanao Region IX and Region XII. But not all of those 13 provinces are
within these areas now.
I have three questions that will require brief answers.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I give a brief comment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: As a matter of firsthand information, I know that there have
been ongoing consultations amongst various groups of the Bangsa Moro in
Marawi,
in Zamboanga and in Cotabato. As early as 1981, there have been smaller
consultations between Muslims, on one hand, and Christians on the other,
together
with what is generally known as Lumad, a generic term for tribal groups in
Mindanao. So, these consultations are ongoing.
MR. SARMIENTO: Yesterday, during the sponsorship speech delivered by
Commissioner Nolledo and in the course of the interpellation made by
Commissioner
Rama, Commissioner Nolledo said that this article on autonomous regions
will pave the way for federalism as he challenged us to transcend the shell of
obsolescence. I think Commissioner Nolledo is aware that in July we
conducted several hearings in many provinces, and in those public hearings,
the people
clamored for a unitary form of government. My question is this: Is it not too
presumptuous on our part to advocate federalism when our people in the
provinces we went to Bicol and the Visayas clamor for a unitary form of
government? May I hear the response of Commissioner Nolledo who was with
me in
Naga City where the people clamored for a unitary form of government.
MR. NOLLEDO: I beg to disagree. In Naga City, I personally asked the people
and they said they were for federalism. In Davao City, they were for an
autonomous region. Now, I would like to mention here that the people are
sharply divided in their opinions. Our consultations are limited in nature. So,
we
cannot say that the opinion expressed is the opinion of the entire Filipino
people because we went to only selected areas. I wish to say that when I use
the word federalization, I do not mean the federalization as understood in
the United States. That is why in my original speech, I said federalization

by the establishment of autonomous regions, as authorized in this report. I
have to emphasize that because I am misunderstood. I wanted the country
to be
divided so that there will be economic progress. I feel that the unitary system
in the country has miserably failed, and we will repeat that. The
advantages of truly decentralizing the Philippines are given in a handout just
distributed to us through the courtesy of Commissioner Rosario Braid.
MR. SARMIENTO: I will not debate with the Gentleman on federalism. I have
these last two points to raise. Section 9 states that The legislature shall
create autonomous regions. My emphasis is on the word shall. Yesterday,
Commissioner Nolledo stated that many of these provisions were extracted
from
the UP draft; however, the UP draft used the word may instead of the word
shall. Also, a group of Muslim students gave this Representation a draft
constitution where the word may is used instead of the word shall. As
pointed out by Commissioner Villacorta, Spain used the word may instead
of
shall. Would it not be wise that we use the word may instead of using
shall?
MR. NOLLEDO: The word may can also be interpreted as shall depending
on the intention of the provision. Let me explain why we used the word
shall.
Upon the request of the Muslim leaders who appeared before our Committee
several times, they said that it must be mandatory. However, as I explained
yesterday, the word shall here would, in effect, mean may because there
are certain requirements to be complied with before an autonomous region
may be
established. There must be consultation with the respective heads of
provinces and cities; there must be an organic act to be passed by Congress,
and
Congress is given the right to set up the government structure with the
details set forth also in this report; and there must be a plebiscite to be held.
Therefore, without these conditions being complied with, Congress may not,
after all, set up the autonomous region. So, I hope the body will bear with us
and with the Muslim leaders who appeared before us by tolerating the word
shall as found in Section 9 of the second part of our report.
MR. SARMIENTO: I think the Committee agrees that the Bangsa Moro people
and the people of Cordillera should be given autonomy and many of our
colleagues
are supportive of their idea. Would it be proper if we mention in this Article
these two regions, mentioning Bangsa Moro people and the people of
Cordillera, instead of making a general statement creating autonomous
regions? It would encourage, in the words of Commissioner Romulo as

quoted in the
Malaya, the Bicolanos and the Ilocanos to advocate for autonomy which
would be dangerous.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to that, I beg to disagree, if Commissioner
Romulo was correctly quoted, that it will destroy the republican system or
the
presidential system. I would like to remind Mr. Romulo whose father was
Ambassador to the United States that the United States government is
federal in
nature and is presidential in form, so that federalization is not inconsistent
with the presidential form of government. I hope Commissioner Romulo must
have been misquoted.
We should give leeway to Congress for the possibility of creating more
autonomous regions beyond the Cordillera and Muslim Mindanao. I think this
is the
golden opportunity for us to open that avenue. We are not mandating
Congress to create other autonomous regions. We are mandating Congress
to create the
Cordillera and Muslim Mindanao autonomous regions in obedience to the
continuing, loud and clear cry from the people in these regions.
And so, I hope that this body will bear with me again. Let us open that
avenue; let us give leeway to Congress. Congress may decide later on, that
there
should be more autonomous regions in the Republic of the Philippines. I ask
for broadmindedness on the part of the Members of this Commission.
MR. SARMIENTO: I also appeal to the Committee to give emphasis to these
two regions instead of giving autonomy to other regions.
MR. NOLLEDO: We are giving that emphasis, but many are objecting to
mentioning the names of Cordillera and Muslim Mindanao in our report. I
would like the
Members of the Commission to know that in the Constitution of Russia, the
autonomous regions are mentioned specifically. They say that the
constitution,
being the fundamental law, is a permanent document. I would like them to
know that Cordillera is permanently located in the area where it is located
within
our country, and that Muslim Mindanao is also permanently located. So,
there is no harm mentioning them in the legal document that we are now
drafting.
MR. SARMIENTO: Would Commissioner Nolledo kindly enlighten this

Representation about the clause When circumstances so warrant which
appears on page 3,
line 9? This is with respect to the creation of special forces. What is so
special about these forces that they are called special forces, not regular
forces?
MR. NOLLEDO: We actually qualified only the term as found in the Tripoli
Agreement. I beg to disagree with those who said that the existence of
security
forces as found in the Tripoli Agreement is to be negotiated. It was stipulated
upon but it is only the relationship between the special forces and the
central forces that remains to be negotiated.
Special forces are those which are generally independent of the army. For
example, since the country is archipelagic in nature there are instances when
our
army may be called to contain the insurgency in Cagayan or in other parts of
Bicolandia or in Samar. And so, there will be a need to supplement the local
police forces with special security forces that may come from volunteers
from the autonomous region. The Gentleman will notice that the original
provision
is very general. It says that they can establish special forces period.
So, I hope they will not get angry if I added several words. I was the one who
added When circumstances so warrant and then, subject to supervision
by
the national armed forces and under such provisions as the law may
provide. In effect, these will weaken the strength that may be gained from
the
establishment of these special forces. My purpose is to implement the
provision that the autonomous regions shall exist within the framework of
national
sovereignty and respecting the territorial integrity of the Republic of the
Philippines.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you for the inspired and fervent explanation.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, with all due deference to the Committee
and to Chairman Nolledo who has no peer in the field of constitutional law, I
beg to differ with the committee report.
I fully support the demand of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people for
local autonomy. But I cannot subscribe to the committee report which would
grant Congress plenary power and authority to declare autonomous regions
all over the country. Autonomy as a formal and juristic concept essentially
involves a match between the States original power against the derivative
power of the autonomous regions. Is not there any fundamental conceptual
incompatibility between the States sovereignty and the power of the
autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: As I already stated, these autonomous regions are established
within the framework of our national sovereignty. And in answer to the
question
of Commissioner Bengzon this morning that should there be rebels against
the government, whether this will prevent the President from sending the
armed
forces to suppress the rebellion, I said, No, because of the expression
within the framework of national sovereignty. We are not granting
sovereignty to
the autonomous region. That is why the term power of autonomous region
was appropriately used because as an accepted principle in constitutional
law,
sovereignty is indivisible. That is why we also maintain the provision in both
Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 that the President of the Philippines has
supervisory power over autonomous regions to see to it that laws are
faithfully executed. So, I find no inconsistency between the powers to be
granted to
autonomous regions and the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines.
MS. AQUINO: On the matter of concepts, I might agree with Commissioner
Nolledo, but in practical application, there are some serious ramifications. For
example, in the context of a Third World, the concept of autonomy is
invariably linked to the factors of self-sufficiency in a modernized state and
state
sovereignty. In the contemporary times, the present claims for autonomy
arise essentially from the strained relationship between a dominant group
and a
subordinate group.
We hear the assertions for sovereignty and autonomy from ethnic, cultural
and religious groups, specifically from the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera
people. I have no quarrel with that; in fact, I am fully supportive of that.
However, for all of its rhetoric, a claim of autonomy for all of the regions
as provided for in Sections 9, 10, and 11 is fraught with a lot of danger to the
existence of the State. In fact, it may be more counterproductive than
productive.
We have not yet learned how to vitalize a local government in the context of
the Philippine politics. Regionalistic problems remain unresolved. The basic
problems of poverty, education and welfare are so perverse that the
traditional modes and approaches to these problems are seriously being
questioned. All
serious, sane, and prudent attempts to solve this kind of problem would call
for more centralization than fragmentation. It is my fear that this bold step
that the Committee is taking borders on constitutional adventurism.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. I am happy that Commissioner Aquino is making those
observations because there is no adventurism; we are merely opening the
way towards
declaring the different regions in the Philippines autonomous, in addition to
the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao. I think the Commissioners fears are
groundless because the Committee has not decided that those should be the
steps to be taken. We are merely opening the avenue towards Congress
setting up
more autonomous regions. Suppose Congress does not set up because
Congress was convinced by the observations of Commissioner Aquino, then I
have no qualms
about it; I have no objection against it. That is why the Commissioner should
say more in discouraging Congress from setting up other autonomous
regions.
But to picture the fact that the Committee has recommended the setting up
of autonomous regions other than the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao in
explicit
terms, I think, is gratuitous. We are merely opening the way, giving more
leeway to Congress to do that. I think this is our duty to the nation because
of
the possibility that later on declaring the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao as
autonomous regions would have beneficial effects and Congress, perhaps,
may
be inspired or urged to set up more autonomous regions. The hands of
Congress will be tied if we do not make Section 9, more or less, flexible.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I cannot seem to come to terms with the
position of the Committee. If that is the intention of the Committee, what
then
is the justification for the unwarranted libertinism in Sections 9 and 10?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I object to the words unwarranted
libertinism. We are giving Congress a leeway.
MS. AQUINO: I was just proceeding from the position of the Committee as the
Gentleman has articulated.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is true. We are giving merely a leeway to Congress,
otherwise, we can easily state here that autonomous regions should refer
only to
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. If I did not say that this provision is
flexible as to open an avenue towards formation of autonomous regions,
perhaps
the controversy between us would never arise. In fact, if I did not say that, I
think the Commissioner cannot even imply from that.
MR. RAMA: There are two more interpellators, and with a little bit of luck we
will be able to move to the period of amendments.
I ask that Commissioner Tan be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have a short question that needs a short
answer.
There is sometimes the paranoia that such moves for autonomy are
motivated by minority dominant groups. Has the Committee found a gauge
that would
determine if this move of the Cordilleras is genuine, historical and social
aspirations of the majority? Is the official plebiscite adequate? Is it not too
late?
MR. NOLLEDO: Please do not ask us to give a brief answer.
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me give a brief answer. Yes, for both the Cordillera and
the Bangsa Moro regions to the extent that we are aware of the nature of the
consultations.
SR. TAN: What is the gauge?

MR. BENNAGEN: The range of consultations in terms of participants, in terms
of sectors, and in terms of analysis of the issues.
SR. TAN: And how about the plebiscite?
MR. BENNAGEN: The plebiscite has to be done according to the Charter,
according to Congress. The present consultations do not terminate the act of
creating
the autonomous region. They are merely phases of this process of attaining a
juridical personality as an autonomous region.
SR. TAN: So, the answer of the Commissioner is the consultations which are
not yet ended.
MR. BENNAGEN: Not yet ended.
SR. TAN: Thank you, I am satisfied.
MR. RAMA: For one question seeking clarification, I ask that Commissioner
Villacorta be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I beg the indulgence of the Chair. I
have already spoken, but I thought that this basic clarification is needed.
First of all, I would like to reiterate that I am for regional autonomy for Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordillera people, contrary to the allegation of one
newspaper that I was against it. Mr. Presiding Officer, we were given the
impression by the Committee that the rationale for regional autonomy is the
need
to rectify the imbalance in the development of different regions, particularly
the regions of Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras and the neglect that
these or some communal groups have suffered through the centuries. But
now it seems that the Committee is talking about federalism rather than
regional
autonomy. The precedents that the Committee had mentioned were the
regional autonomy in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal and in China. But in all these
four
countries that were cited by the Committee, there was selective regional
autonomy, not a blanket one which would give the prerogative for all regions
in
those countries to opt for regional autonomy.
For example, in Italy the Constitution specifies that autonomy will be

attributed only to Sicily, Sardinia, Trentino-Alto Adique, Friuli-Venetia Julia and
Valle dAosta. In Portugal, it was specified that autonomy will be given only to
the Azores and Madeira. In Spain, regional autonomy is theoretically
reserved for all the regions but the main motivation was to give recognition
to the regional rights or autonomous rights of the Basque region and also
Catalua. Commissioner Ople also mentioned those regions that enjoy
autonomy in China. Therefore, I am not entirely clear why the Committee is
suddenly
broadening the scope of autonomy. My understanding of the rationale is that
this is something like sectoral representation by which we try to correct the
imbalance so that the disadvantaged sectors may be raised and become
equal some day to the more advantaged sectors. By allowing regions of the
Christian
lowland communities the same right, the Committee is not really correcting
the imbalance but in fact, exacerbating it because it will be very difficult for
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras to catch up with the Christian
lowlanders.
MR. NOLLEDO: If Commissioner Villacorta had listened to my explanations to
Commissioner Aquinos questions, I think he would have easily understood
my
situation when I explained the meaning of federalization. I was talking also of
autonomous regions. Even yesterday I already explained in my speech that I
am talking of the establishment of autonomous regions other than the
Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao, and we are merely opening the avenue
towards Congress
establishing other autonomous regions. If Congress so decides to regionalize
all parts of the country adopting, for example, the 13 regions now
constituted, there is no constitutional prohibition. So, please understand my
situation.
MR. VILLACORTA: I have been listening attentively but I would like to go back
to the rationale. How can we be opening the doors to other regions when the
main premise is that we would want to correct the imbalance and, therefore,
this is some kind of a special privilege to be given only to the so-called long
oppressed communities; namely, Muslim Mindanao and Cordillera? Now, we
want to give it to everyone. Then, where is the correction of the imbalance?
MR. NOLLEDO: I said we are opening the avenue for the possibility so that
Congress will take a cue from it, if Congress so decides. Actually, this country
should really decentralize effectively. I mentioned the situations when
governors and city mayors would go to the National Capital Region to consult
and
ask for aid from Malacaang or from the Minister of Local Government but
these officials cannot be found. What happens? They go back to their
provinces and
cities highly frustrated and bitter against the national government. I believe
that it is only through effective decentralization, where political powers
are equitably dispersed, that this nation will attain progress. The unitary
system has failed in the Republic of the Philippines because of
decentralization.
MR. VILLACORTA: Just a very brief rejoinder, Mr. Presiding Officer. There are
two kinds of decentralization and these two concepts are recognized in
public
administration: political decentralization and administrative decentralization.
I think what the Honorable Nolledo is referring to is administrative
decentralization and no one quarrels with him on that point. But we also
understand that there are communities that require not just administrative
decentralization, but also political decentralization. I think many, if not most
of us, are willing to grant that to Muslim Mindanao and to the
Cordilleras, but not to the other regions. Our national problem is
fragmentation we are severely fragmented as we are, culturally,
psychologically,
linguistically.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is only through fragmentation that this country will succeed.
Quote me anywhere and I will debate with the Gentleman on that when we
have
the time.
MR. VILLACORTA: But may I also hear the reaction of Commissioner
Bennagen.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. I was supportive and I still am supportive of the general
provision on granting autonomy at some future time within the overall
principle of autonomy as an effort to correct the centuries or years of
injustice. I have in mind, for instance, the other tribal groups in Mindanao,
which
at some future time might evolve into some kind of an autonomous area. It
does not have to be a province, a district or some other groups sharing the
same
characteristics already mentioned. We go by the principle of autonomy as
enunciated in a paper by Prof. Albert Blaustein, entitled Constitutional
Protections For Indigenous Peoples. A proposal is with the International
Center for Constitutional Studies at Athens, which says: In developing the
constitutional rights of indigenous peoples, the following must be studied,
and these are mentioned in the spirit of a proposal:
1) Autonomy Autonomy is the constitutional term of the art for
institutional arrangements granting a degree of freedom to a recognized,
racial,
religious, linguistic, ethnic, tribal or cultural group to order its own affairs. It
is closely aligned with principles of self-rule and
self-determination.
In answer to the Gentlemans question on what conditions do the rights of
indigenous peoples warrant independent statehood, a federal structure or
autonomous status, I think it is in this sense that it speaks of opening the
possibilities for some future neglected areas to evolve into some kind of
autonomy.
MR. RAMA: We have reached the end of the long list of registered speakers.
And before somebody stands up, I move that we close the period of
sponsorship
and debate on the Article on Local Governments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we proceed to the period of
amendments on the Article on Local Governments and Autonomous Regions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection to the motion
that we move to the period of amendments? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: In order to recharge our energies, I move that we suspend the
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is suspended.
It was 4:38 p.m.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have just been designated as the
Acting Floor Leader.
We are now in the period of amendments but before we start, may I ask that
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not know if there are other
Commissioners who have the same conceptual questions as I have. I was
wondering if it
is possible for us to have a caucus on this Article before we go into the
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Does the Gentleman want to present
a motion to that effect?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to propose a motion that the
body meet in caucus to discuss some conceptual features of the Article
before
we go into the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): When does the Gentleman wish to
hold the caucus?
MR. MONSOD: May we ask the advice of the Presiding Officer? Is it possible
for us to go into the caucus right now?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee has no objection.
MR. MONSOD: If the Committee has no objection, we can go into the caucus
right now, although I would prefer that we meet in the caucus room. I would
like
to propose if we can have an adjournment and go into caucus.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, in view of the statement of
Commissioner Monsod and the thinking of the body that we should go into
caucus, I now move
to adjourn the session until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is adjourned until

tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning
It was 5:14 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 55
Wednesday, August 13, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:43 a.m., the Vice-President, the Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla, opened
the session.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer
to be led by the Honorable Vicente B. Foz.
PRAYER
MR. FOZ: Almighty God, give us the light to write a Constitution the people
will know and like, neither too long nor too short but good for them. Give us
the strength to carry on with humility though often we get carried away
when we push our ideas too hard, and say words we do not really mean but
hurt our
fellow workers. Give us the time to reflect even as we rush our work to meet
some crazy deadline, mindful that more than stringing together words and
phrases, we write history and bind our people; that is, if they accept it. But
Lord, please make them do. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
Abubakar
Present *
Rosario Braid
Present
Alonto
Present *
Brocka
Present
Aquino
Present
Calderon
Present
Azcuna
Present
Castro de
Present
Bacani
Present
Colayco
Present
Bengzon
Present
Concepcion
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Davide
Present
Bernas
Present
Foz
Present
Garcia
Present *
Reyes de los
Present *
Gascon
Present
Rigos
Present
Guingona
Absent
Rodrigo
Present
Jamir
Present
Romulo
Present
Laurel
Present
Rosales
Present
Lerum
Present *
Sarmiento
Present *
Maambong
Present *
Suarez
Present
Monsod
Present
Sumulong
Present
Natividad
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Nieva
Absent
Tan
Present *
Nolledo
Present *
Tingson
Present
Ople
Present
Treas
Present
Padilla
Present
Uka
Present
Quesada
Present
Villacorta
Present
Rama
Present
Villegas
Present
Regalado
Absent
The President is absent.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
Before calling on the Assistant Floor Leader, we wish to acknowledge the
presence of a group of students from St. Scholasticas College, Manila and St.
Bridgets College, Batangas.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we dispense with the reading
of the Journal of yesterdays session.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
Report, the Vice-President making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Jose C. Laureta of 105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati,
Metro Manila, recommending that Section (7) 2 of Proposed Resolution No.
531 be
deleted, and that the question whether the advertising industry should be
nationalized be deferred and be left for determination by the legislative body.
Letter from Mr. Emilio Y. Hilado, Jr. of P.O. Box 199, Bacolod City, suggesting
among others the following: (1) that each provision as finally passed by
the Committee be published in full in the major daily newspapers; (2) that
provincial governors and municipal mayors be encouraged to conduct public
hearings on each provision as approved by the Committee; and (3) publish
each provision as it is finally passed by the Constitutional Commission.
One hundred forty-one letters from students in Silang, Cavite, all seeking to
include in the Constitution the following proposals: (1) a No-U.S. Military
Bases Agreement; (2) an anti-nuclear power plant; (3) the promotion of
Philippine sovereignty over our natural resources; and (4) a No-U.S. or any
foreign
intervention on Philippine affairs.
Principles.
Communication from the Philippine Social Science Council, Inc., Don M.
Marcos Avenue, U.P., Diliman, Quezon City, signed by its Chairman, Carolina
G.
Hernandez, and thirteen other officers and members, endorsing favorably
the proposal to grant regional autonomy to areas and populations with
common
historical, geographical, cultural, linguistic and ethnic characteristics.
Letter from Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, Archbishop of Cebu, expressing his deep
esteem and appreciation for the sacred task of writing a Constitution for the
country, enclosing therewith a copy of the 1979 Pastoral Letter of the
Philippine Hierarchy on the Life of the Unborn Child, which may be of help in
the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.
Position Paper of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako containing the
following: (1) Advertising agencies are not mass media; (2) No public policy
is
offended by the non-nationalization of advertising agencies; (3) Foreign
owners have nothing to do with the content of advertisement and, hence, do
not
impose their own culture on us; (4) The existing constitutional provision on
mass media is adequate to promote the purpose envisioned by the proposal;
and
(5) The nationalization of advertising agencies is best left to the wisdom of a
legislature, which positions have been adequately discussed therein.

Communication signed by Mr. Jorge Pelayo Albayda of 15 Moreo Street,
Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, and one hundred ninety other signatories
seeking the
retention of the U.S. military bases in the Philippines even after the expiry
date, saying that the presence of these bases is a boon to our economy,
aside
from providing security for the Philippines and Southeast Asia.
Principles.
Communication from the Cordillera Peoples Alliance transmitting a
resolution signed by three thousand eight hundred thirty-six (3,836) people,
seeking a
constitutional provision that would grant a regional autonomous government
in the Cordillera.
Letter from Mr. Ramon R. Leuterio of 105 P. Cruz Street, Mandaluyong, Metro
Manila, urging the Constitutional Commission not to include in the
Constitution
controversial issues such as the U.S. military bases, abortion, nuclear-free
Philippines, and expressing apprehension that the Constitution might be
rejected if these are included.
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Catalino P. Arafiles, President, Philippine Meteorological
Society, 1424 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, conveying full support to the
resolution incorporating in the Constitution an Article on Education, Science,
Technology, Sports, Arts and Culture.

COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE PROVISIONS
ON THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 365.
Sponsored by Hon. Foz, Rigos, Abubakar, Concepcion, de Castro, Jamir,
Monsod, Nieva, Regalado, de los Reyes, Jr., Rodrigo, Villegas, Garcia and
Sarmiento.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
Continuation
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we continue the consideration on
Second Reading of the Article on Social Justice. This is Proposed Resolution
No.
534. There would be some reservations for the sake of clarification which will
be stated by Commissioner Monsod.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Floor
Leader? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, there are two clarificatory refinements or
modifications in the Social Justices report to convey the intent of the
Committee and the body. The first one is on page 2 of Proposed Resolution
No. 534, as amended. I think this was distributed yesterday. The second
paragraph
of page 2 states: The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of
voluntary modes
in settling disputes including conciliation. The modification is on the
following words: instead of the words and the enforcement of, it should
read AND
SHALL ENFORCE. So, the refinement is a substitution of the phrase and the
enforcement of by the words AND SHALL ENFORCE.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed substitution?
MR. MONSOD: The second one is on page 4, on urban land reform and
housing, second to the last sentence of Section 9, where it says It shall
provide
(promote). I have discussed this with the proponent of the amendment,
Commissioner Davide, and the word should be PROMOTE and not provide
because the
State shall not provide the employment opportunities but shall promote
employment opportunities.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed substitution of
the word provide for PROMOTE?
MR. MONSOD: PROMOTE instead of provide, Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Yes, PROMOTE instead of provide.
approved.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, there will be some clarifications also to be
stated by Commissioner Tadeo regarding the same Article.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Mr. Vice-President, meron lang po akong ilang paglilinaw tungkol
sa mga magbubukid dahil mayroong ilang tanong ang mga peryodista na
hindi ko
kayang sagutin at may kalabuan. Naging mabilis ang pagpasok ng mga
amendments noong tinatalakay natin ang agrarian and natural resources
reform. Ang tanong
ko ay para kay Commissioner Bernas at ito ay tungkol sa just

compensation. In the case of the NHA vs. Reyes, GR 4914, June 29, 1983,
sinasabi na ang
just compensation ay batay sa assessed value or tax declaration,
whichever is lower. Sinasabi kasi na nagkaroon ng pagkalito sa ibat-ibang
interpretation subalit ang ibig sabihin nito ay fair market value. Ang
paglilinaw po ng magbubukid ay ganito: kung papasok ang pamahalaan sa
sinasabi
nating affordable, iyon po bang isa-subsidize ng government ay babayaran
pa ng magsasaka sa government o iyon ay grant na sa kanila?
FR. BERNAS: Hindi na, grant na iyan sa kanila.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: My understanding is that whatever is subsidized by the State is
precisely a subsidy to the farmers; and because it is a subsidy, my
understanding is that the farmers will not have to repay. In other words, this
is a concrete implementation of the meaning we give to social justice: that
those who have less in life should have more in law.
MR. TADEO: Salamat po, Commissioner Bernas. Ito po iyong susunod kong
paglilinaw.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: We will recognize Commissioner Bacani after or does
he want to speak now?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. I just want to ask a question because Commissioner
Tadeo asked Commissioner Bernas for an explanation of the word. What is
the binding
force of that for the future interpretation of this Constitution, because
Commissioner Bernas is not a member of the Social Justice Committee? I am
just
inquiring what would be the nature or the binding force of that clarificatory
remark on the future interpretation of the Constitution?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas may reply if he so desires.
FR. BERNAS: My interpretation and my answer were precisely based not so
much on the fact that I am a member of the Social Justice Committee but
rather as a
participant in the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission or on what
was very clear in the discussions on the floor. And I think that is what is
binding. It was very clear to me that that is the intent. The intent is to give
justice to the owner even if it will be at the expense of the government in

order to make things affordable for the poor. That to my mind is the clear
intent in the deliberations on the floor which I think is what is binding and
not the committee report.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, I am a member of the Committee and I was
the one who answered that question, and I think the record will bear out that
the
interpretation of the Committee is the same as the interpretation of
Commissioner Bernas.
MR. TADEO: Tinanong ko po iyon kay Commissioner Bernas. Kaya ko po
pinadaloy ang tanong ko sa kanya ay dahil siya po ang nagpaliwanag noong
pinag-uusapan
ang bagay na ito. Ang pangalawa kong katanungan ay tungkol dito sa
pagpasok ng ecological, developmental or equity considerations. Puwede po
bang
maipaliwanag kung ano ang kahulugan ng ecological, developmental or
equity considerations?
FR. BERNAS: I think that has to be answered by the Committee; hindi ako ang
nagpasok niyan.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Hindi po ako ang nagpasok niyan pero nagbigay ako ng
paliwanag na ang ibig sabihin ay isaalang-alang natin iyong
pangangailangan ng
kapaligiran, isaalang-alang din iyong pangangailangan ng pag-unlad at saka
iyong pagkapantay-pantay. Pagsama-samahin iyong tatlong iyon.
MR. TADEO: Mga kagalanggalang kong mga kasama, hindi kaya
makabubuting pagkatapos ng salitang ecological ay lagyan natin ng propeople development?
MR. BENNAGEN: Ano ang magiging kahulugan ng pro-people development
doon sa pagsasama-sama noong tatlong kaurian?
MR. TADEO: Kasi mayroong mga developmental projects na

nangangahulugang pag-eject ng tenant.
MR. BENNAGEN: Kaya nga ayon doon sa pagpapaliwanag kailangang
isaalang-alang nang sabay-sabay iyong tatlo para sa ganoon iyung
consideration ng equity, ng
pag-unlad at ng kapaligiran ay nandoon din at hindi hiwa-hiwalay kundi
magkaugnay.
MR. TADEO: Salamat po. Ito ay isang paglilinaw lamang.
MR. BENNAGEN: Marami pong salamat.
MR. TADEO: Pangalawang paglilinaw, Mr. Vice-President; ito po kasi ang
napakaselan: The State shall respect the rights of small landowners in
determining
retention limits. Ito ay tinanong ko rin sa ilang mga kasama ko; nagkaroon
din ng medyo ilang kaguluhan sa Commission. Under Republic Act 3844 at
sinusugan ng Republic Acts 6389 at 6390 at under P.D. No. 27 pinaglilinaw
ang ganito: kung mayroong retention limits na seven hectares, halimbawa,
ang
tenant sa loob noong seven hectares ay hindi puwedeng i-eject kung hindi
mananatiling under leasehold, pero hindi siya puwedeng magmay-ari. Iyon
lang ang
gusto kong linawin. Ang problema ko kasi dito ay wala si Commissioner
Rustico de los Reyes na siyang nagpasok ng susog na ito. Ang tanong ay
ganito: Ang
ibig sabihin ba nitong The State shall respect the rights of small landowners
in determining retention limits ay kung ma-determine ang limits na seven
hectares at mayroon ditong magsasaka ay puwede silang i-eject o ang ibig
sabihin nito ay under Republic Acts 3844, 6389, 6390 and P.D. No. 27, yung
mga
magbubukid ay mananatiling leasehold pero hindi sila puwedeng magmayari ng lupa; Ganoon po ba ang ibig sabihin nito?
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The Committees interpretation proceeds from the basic
premise that when one respects the retention limits of small landowners, he
need not
necessarily be an owner-cultivator, in which case he is allowed under the
circumstances to maintain the leasehold arrangement with a tenant. It does
not
necessarily mean, therefore, that it does not follow that the tenant can be
immediately ejected or evicted by the small landowner.
MR. TADEO: Salamat po. Kasi ito yung isang mahalagang tanong sa akin na
hindi ko masyadong masagot din kaya nilinaw ko lamang kung anong ibig
sabihin
nito. Ang ibig sabihin ay sinusunod nito yung Republic Act 3844 na
sinusugan ng Republic Acts 6389, 6390 at P.D. No. 27.
MR. BENNAGEN: Dagdag lang doon, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think in the deliberations of the Committee, that should
also be qualified in terms of just share of the fruits of the land. That is an
additional qualification.
MR. TADEO: Ito na lang, isang paglilinaw na pinakahuling tanong. Itong The
State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land sharing, ano ang
ibig sabihin nitong incentives? Tinatanong din kasi ako at hindi ko gaanong
maipaliwanag. Pero mayroon pang isang paglilinaw. Bukod doon sa
incentives,
anong ibig sabihin ng voluntary land sharing? Ang pagkakaunawa namin sa
voluntary land sharing ay ganito: kung halimbawa ay mayroon kang
sampung
ektarya, puwede mong sabihin sa mga magsasaka na akin na itong lima at
maghati-hati na kayo roon sa lima. Ang ibig naming sabihin ay nilalabag nito
ang
principles of agrarian reform. Ang ibig bang sabihin nito ay hindi lalabagin
ang principles of agrarian reform at iyung kanyang karapatan sa kanyang
lupang
binubungkal? Kasi ayaw naming makita na maging loophole ito sa karapatan
ng nagbubungkal sa lupa kung sasabihin ng panginoong maylupa, Sige,
kung mayroon
kang three hectares na sinasaka sa akin, ibibigay ko na sa iyo yung one
hectare, bibigyan ko ng title, pero ibabalik mo sa akin yung two hectares.
Kaya
gusto naming liwanagin ito para sa ganoon kung magtatanong sila ay
maipaliwanag kong maigi ito. Noong Linggo, binaha ako ng mga magbubukid
upang ipaliwanag
ko mismo itong mga naipasa ng Con-Com tungkol sa agrarian reform.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized
to make the explanation.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, during the deliberations, the intent was
explained that this would be incentives to facilitate, accelerate and include
areas that might not be considered included in the agrarian reform program.
Therefore, this sentence cannot impair or obstruct or diminish the agrarian
reform program, but this is a matter between the government and certain
landowners for the government to give them incentives in order to give full
expression in the agrarian reform program.
MR. TADEO: Salamat po, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized on the same
subject.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President, I would just like to clarify also the meaning
of fair market value because Commissioner Tadeo cited a case which
interpreted the presidential decree of the deposed President Marcos with
respect to the meaning of just compensation. It was the intention of the
Committee, and which was adopted by this body, that just compensation is
defined as the fair market value of the property which is determined by the
various market forces. In other words, it is the definition of just
compensation as articulated by the Supreme Court before that decree of
President
Marcos was made. The meaning of just compensation, as articulated by
the Committee and adopted by the Commission, is not the same as that
given by the
decree of President Marcos.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. RAMA: I now reiterate my motion to vote on Second Reading on Proposed
Resolution No. 534 on the Article on Social Justice.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Vice-President.

FR. BERNAS: Before we vote, back to just compensation, after the remarks
of Commissioner Bengzon, although I would say that although in the
deliberations
on the floor we adopted the principle of fair market value in general, in our
deliberations on P.D. No. 27, which was the subject of the decision cited by
Commissioner Tadeo, it was also stated here that unless that is challenged,
at least in that case, it was accepted that the fair market value could be as
specified in P.D. No. 27. And in that particular case, the meaning of fair
market value there of just compensation was not challenged at all. And
apparently, in this particular case, it was seen that this was a fair market
value.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Rosario Braid would like to be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: On the matter of voluntary land sharing, since I
introduced that concept, it is a privilege given to landowners in terms of tax
exemptions. And also, it is open to both tenants as well as non-tenants. And I
am sure that the legislature could make provisions so that the loopholes
that Commissioner Tadeo fears would not happen. I think this is working
rather successfully in some places in the South, particularly in Negros, so I do
not think we have to fear. It is a complementary scheme that could work
successfully for the benefit of the tillers.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the motion of the Floor Leader, will the
Secretary-General read the title of the resolution.
MR. MONSOD: We are sorry but can we just go back to one interpretation
that was given earlier on ecological, developmental or equity
considerations.
I believe that the intent of the Committee here is that these three factors
need not always be cumulative, and the reason for this is, we want to cover
situations where a family with 10 children, for example, has only, say, 50
hectares; and even if the limit is 25, there may be equity considerations for
allowing that family to transfer to the 10 children five hectares each rather
than subject it to agrarian reform.
These are situations that we cannot foresee, but Congress can certainly look
into these things.
MR. TADEO: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. TADEO: Ang ibig ko lang sabihin ay puwedeng magawa iyon kung walang
tenant involved o regular pa ang workers involved.
MR. RAMA: The body is now ready to vote.
MR. JAMIR: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Jamir would like to be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: May we know which of the two opinions the one given by
Commissioner Bengzon and the other given by Commissioner Bernas
should be accepted by
the Commission?
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President, I have just conferred with Commissioner
Bernas and we have decided to submit the matter to the floor. When we
discussed
this in the Committee and on the floor, we were always laboring under the
impression that just compensation meant the definition as articulated by
the
Supreme Court prior to P.D. No. 76. But Commissioner Bernas mentioned that
there was this interpretation of fair market value as articulated in P.D. No.
76. And it seems that according to the records, this definition was not
challenged, so we have to have this thing clarified.
I maintain that the intention of the Committee in defining just

compensation is the definition articulated by the Supreme Court in its
various decisions
in the past prior to P.D. No. 76, which is the fair market value of the property
as determined by the market forces. And even if the interpretation of P.D.
No. 76 still subsists, my position is that this Commission can determine and
should determine what is the meaning of just compensation.
So we would like to submit this to the floor.
MR. RAMA: Before we submit it to the floor, may I ask that Commissioner
Bernas be recognized.
FR. BERNAS: In trying to determine just compensation for purposes of
agrarian reform, we must remember that we have to look at this in the
context of the
Article where it is. It is in the Article on Social Justice, and the thrust of this
Article is precisely to make it easier for the disadvantaged to be able
to obtain land. Now, we have P.D. No. 76 which, in previous remarks I made, I
said that its definition of just compensation is a prima facie
determination made by the legislative authority that that is just
compensation; namely, the assessed value or the tax declaration of the
owner, whichever
is lower. It is a prima facie declaration. It is still within the authority of the
Supreme Court to take a look at this in every instance, whether this, in
fact, is the just compensation. But if it comes to agrarian reform, the
Supreme Court must look at this in the context precisely of the Article which
is
for the benefit of the disadvantaged. Thus, even if, let us say, the Supreme
Court were to say that this assessed value or tax declaration, whichever is
lower, is not in this particular instance equivalent to the market value
dictated by the market forces, what we are saying here is that the farmer or
farm
worker who is obtaining it will not be forced to pay more than that; but if
more has to be paid to the owner, then the State will carry the burden. This
is
an effort to reconcile whatever differences there may be.
MR. BENGZON: May I just say a word on what Commissioner Bernas said
because I do not think there is a real conflict as to the intention.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon may proceed.
MR. BENGZON: There is no doubt that we have to read this term just
compensation within the context of the Article on Social Justice which would
make it
easier for the disadvantaged to acquire the land. Precisely, if the farmer is
only able to afford so much, that is when the State comes to the aid and
subsidizes it. In this manner the situation will not be to the disadvantage of
the landowner. So, there should be equity on both sides. We are not forcing
the farmer to pay the landowner the value of that property even beyond his
means. Whatever the farmer can afford, so be it, but at the same time,
whatever
is the difference between what the farmer can afford and what is just
compensation, which is equitable to the landowner, the State must come
around and
provide that. So, there is no conflict insofar as the concept is concerned.
What gives confusion is the definition of just compensation and the
intention
of the Committee is not to adopt the definition of President Marcos under P.D.
No. 76 as interpreted by the latest Supreme Court decision.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Vice-President, the manifestations of Commissioner
Bengzon on the matter of the interpretation of just compensation is correct
insofar as
it pertains to the settled usage of just compensation referring to the power
of eminent domain for public use. The matter obtaining now is that which
has
reference to the agrarian reform mandate of the Constitution which has
clearly delineated its objectives in favor of the bias for the landless farmers.
This clearly involves a third party, primarily to the interest of the landowner
and the State, in which case, if there is any perceived conflict between
the jurisprudence that is being cited by Commissioner Bengzon, this is best
resolved in the context of the understanding that the settled jurisprudence
that he is referring to pertains to the public use on the powers of eminent
domain of the State. If there is any conflict at all between what he cited and
what is being settled now in this debate, it should be resolved in favor of the
clear mandate of the Social Justice provisions.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair recalls the statement of Commissioner
Concepcion that if we use a term in the Constitution, it should have a uniform
or the
same meaning, because it is dangerous to use the same term and have one
meaning in one Article and another meaning in another.
So, this is just compensation to the landowner. It seems that the issue is: Is
just compensation the fair market value or is it just compensation under the
presidential decree of President Marcos, based on the tax declaration,
whichever is lower?
It seems that we have discussed this before and that just compensation
means just compensation as decided by many decisions of the Supreme
Court. And it
cannot make reference to the presidential decree of the former regime which
is not just compensation because it refers to whichever declaration is lower.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized, Mr. VicePresident?
FR. BERNAS: It is true that when one phrase appears in a constitution, we
should try to give it the same meaning as much as possible. But I think what
we
are entering into here is really something new just compensation for
purposes of land reform.
I would like to discuss this in the context of the three inherent powers of the
government; namely, the police power, the power of taxation and the power
of eminent domain. When the State exercises any one of these three powers,
it involves always some loss on the part of the citizen. When it exercises
police power, it can involve the destruction of property without
compensation. When it exercises the power of taxation, again, the citizen,
the taxpayer,
incurs some loss because he has to pay a tax. When the State exercises the
power of eminent domain, no matter how much we say that it will be just
compensation the market value in effect and in reality, the owner never
really gets the value of what the market forces dictate. It is a necessary
contribution which a citizen must give to society precisely because society is
valuable.
In this particular case, what we are trying to do is work out a formula for
determining just compensation in the context of agrarian reform, which is for
the benefit of the underprivileged. And the starting point we have is the
formula given under President Marcos. If the assessment or the tax
declaration,
whichever is lower, is not challenged by the owner, then that is the just
compensation. But supposing it is challenged by the owner and then the
Supreme
Court says, In fact, it is not just compensation, then what happens? The
state makes up for the difference. But I think what we are saying is, in a
situation where the state cannot make the difference because the state does
not have the money, then we are authorizing the state to impose on the
owner
the duty to make the sacrifice of accepting less than what is normally known
as the market value.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. BENGZON: I can see now the problem of Commissioner Bernas. In the
event that the state is unable to make the difference between what a farmer
can
afford and what is just for the landowner, then I am not saying that the state
cannot proceed to implement the land reform.
FR. BERNAS: All right.
MR. BENGZON: What I am saying is that the state must look for ways and
means in order to compensate the farmer. If it cannot pay cash, it can pay in
bonds.
FR. BERNAS: We are not in disagreement then, if that is the understanding.
MR. BENGZON: In other words, I am not saying that because the state cannot
afford to make up the difference, then land reform cannot be implemented.
No, I
am not saying that. What I am saying is that there should be established just
compensation. And just compensation should be defined as it would be
equitable to the landowner. As to the manner of payment, that is another
question, because if the state cannot afford to pay cash for the difference,
then
it can certainly look for other ways and means by which it can compensate
the landowner.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, may I ask for a suspension of the session for
two minutes?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the motion of the Floor Leader, the session
is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 10:31 a.m.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: The interpreters of the word just compensation have come to a
meeting of the minds and Commissioner Bernas will state the interpretation
as
agreed upon.
May I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Vice-President, I think we have come to some solutions to
this. The main principle is we do not want the traditional definition of
market
value to be an obstacle to the implementation of land reform. So, let us say
that the actual market value of a piece of land is P1 million, but its
assessed value or its tax declaration is P800,000 and that is all that the
farmer can afford, then, as far as the farmer is concerned, he will be bound
only to pay less, but we leave it to the state to try to make up for the
difference in any way it can.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Mr. Vice-President, that is our agreement.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Mr. Vice-President, that is the interpretation that we have
arrived at.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, with those explanations, I reiterate my motion
that we vote on Second Reading on the Article on Social Justice.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General has already read the title of the
resolution.

MR. BENNAGEN: Just one brief note on my comment on the interrelationship
of the words in the phrase ecological, developmental and equity
considerations.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: All right. Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I am sorry for the interruption. I just want to clarify that
earlier discussion on the interrelationship of the words in the phrase
ecological, developmental, and equity considerations. It is the
understanding of the Committee that while we say that in a number of cases,
all the three
terms should be considered together, in our cases, equity consideration
should take priority.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, the body is now ready to vote.
ON SECOND READING
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Proposed Resolution No.
hand.)
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Vice-President, I abstain.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand.
(Two Members raised their hand.)
The results show 32 votes in favor, none against and two abstentions.
Proposed Resolution No. 534, as amended, is approved on Second Reading.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NOS. 496 AND 533
(Article on the National Economy and Patrimony and Provision on Ancestral

Lands)
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we consider Committee Report
Nos. 24 and 32 on Proposed Resolution Nos. 496 and 533, respectively, as
reported
out by the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that Commissioner Quesada be
recognized to explain the deferment of the report on autonomy because
many of those
interested are still around and they have been here since last night.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to express this request in behalf of the Cordillera
people who are still here and whom we saw last night sleeping on just the
floor of a school. It will be important for them to know just what happened in
our caucus so that they would know why the issue for which they came down
was delayed and what the decision of the body was.
Gusto nilang malaman kung ano ang nangyari at bakit hindi pala tuloy-tuloy
ang pag-uusap sa isyu ng autonomous region. Ang pakiusap nila sa
Committee ay
kung puwede silang bigyan ng impormasyon kaugnay dito para hindi na sila
maghintay pa nang matagal dahil ang pag-uusapan natin ay ibang topic na.
Iyon lang
po.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that the Chairman of the Committee
on National Economy and Patrimony and its members take their seats in
front for
the sponsorship of said resolutions.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The members of the Committee and its Chairman will
please take their seats for the period of interpellations.
MR. RAMA: Before that, Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that Chairman Nolledo
be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo, the Chairman of the Committee

on Local Governments, is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. In reaction to the manifestation
of Commissioner Quesada, I would like to state here that the Constitutional
Commission in caucus yesterday afternoon decided to grant autonomy to the
Cordillera and Muslim Mindanao. (Applause)
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The people in the gallery and our guests are requested
not to applaud.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Vice-President, the members of the Committee also met
this morning and adopted certain amendments to comply with the guidelines
set forth
in the caucus, and that autonomous regions of Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordillera are recognized by the Committee and expected to be affirmed by
the
Constitutional Commission when it meets at the appropriate time.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am a member of the Committee, but I was not informed
that there is a meeting this morning. I was informed that the meeting will be
at one
oclock this afternoon.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Vice-President, there was an amendment made in that
caucus yesterday afternoon. Commissioner Rodrigo called our attention to
the meeting
of the Committee on Style, so we changed the time to eight oclock; and I
emphatically stated that I changed the schedule. Commissioner de Castro
must have
left ahead, and so he was not able to hear the notice.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Vice-President, I left the caucus room much later than
the Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments. I was the last man to
leave
the caucus room, and I did not hear him say that it was amended.
Nevertheless, I will be constrained to manifest my opposition, whatever it
may be, on the floor to whatever the Committee did in my absence.

MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Villegas, Chairman of the Committee
on National Economy and Patrimony, be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized. The other
members of the Committee will please remain seated at the front.
MR. VILLEGAS: May we call on Vice-Chairman Tadeo, Commissioners Bacani,
Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Foz, Gascon, Monsod, Natividad, Ople, Romulo,
Sarmiento,
Suarez, Uka and Villacorta.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Consideration of Proposed Resolution Nos. 496 and 533
is now in order. With the permission of the body, the Secretary-General will
read
only the title of the proposed resolutions without prejudice to inserting in the
Record the whole texts thereof.
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
and Proposed Resolution No. 533, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY A PROVISION ON ANCESTRAL LANDS.
(The following are the whole texts of the proposed resolutions per C.R. Nos.
24 and 32.)
The Committee on National Economy and Patrimony to which was referred
Proposed Resolution No. 10, introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr., entitled:
RESERVING TO FILIPINO CITIZENS OR TO CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS
WHOSE CAPITAL IS WHOLLY
OWNED BY FILIPINO CITIZENS ALONE THE PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT TO
DISPOSE, EXPLORE, DEVELOP, EXPLOIT OR UTILIZE THE NATURAL

RESOURCES OF THE COUNTRY,
Proposed Resolution No. 12, introduced by Honorable de los Reyes, Jr.,
entitled:
RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT RIVERS, LAKES, BAYS AND LAGOONS AND
OTHER BODIES OF WATER BELONG TO ALL THE PEOPLE AND SHALL BE
MAINTAINED AS COMMUNAL FISHING
GROUNDS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
Proposed Resolution No. 16, introduced by Honorable Azcuna, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR A NEW ARTICLE ON CONSERVATION,
RESOLUTION WITHDRAWING THE RIGHT OF BALIK-BAYANS WHO HAVE
EMBRACED FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP TO ACQUIRE LANDS IN THE PHILIPPINES,
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS
AFFECTING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND CREATING A SOCIO-ECONOMIC
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION,
RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE POLICIES ON THE CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL PATRIMONY AND SEEKING TO
INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A
SEPARATE ARTICLE ON THE NATIONAL PATRIMONY,
RESOLUTION TO PROHIBIT SALE OR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC
LANDS TO ANY PERSON WHETHER NATURAL OR JURIDICAL AND TO PROVIDE
THAT SAID LANDS SHALL BE
AVAILABLE ONLY FOR LEASE OR CONCESSION,
Proposed Resolution No. 89, introduced by Honorable Guingona, entitled:
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY,
Proposed Resolution No. 122, introduced by Honorable Villegas, entitled:

STATING THE FORM OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY MOST CONDUCIVE TO THE
ATTAINMENT OF A JUST AND
HUMANE SOCIETY,
Proposed Resolution No. 211, introduced by Honorable Bacani, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO
INSURE THAT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES ARE USED, AND THE EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE
PROPERTY IS REGULATED, FOR THE COMMON GOOD,
Proposed Resolution No. 213, introduced by Honorable Tadeo, Suarez,
Aquino, Brocka, Villacorta, Gascon and Tan, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO DEFINE PATRIMONY AS THE TOTALITY OF THE NATURAL
RESOURCES, OF THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL TRADITIONS, AND OF THE
COLLECTIVE TECHNICAL AND
FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES OF THE FILIPINO NATION,
Proposed Resolution No. 219, introduced by Honorable Sarmiento and Tadeo,
entitled:
RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT THE EXPLOITATION, DEVELOPMENT AND
UTILIZATION OF FISHING GROUNDS AND MARINE PRODUCTS BE RESERVED
TO FILIPINO CITIZENS,
Proposed Resolution No. 288, introduced by Honorable Bacani, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT THE STATE SHALL
RECOGNIZE THE PRIMACY OF LABOR OVER CAPITAL IN THE REGULATION OF
THE ECONOMY,
Proposed Resolution No. 309, introduced by Honorable Gascon, entitled:
NATIONAL PATRIMONY AND THE ECONOMY,
Proposed Resolution No. 317, introduced by Honorable Tingson, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCLUDE IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS THE
IMPOSITION OF A TWENTY-YEAR LOGGING BAN ON ENDANGERED FOREST
LANDS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY,
Proposed Resolution No, 368, introduced by Honorable Suarez, Jamir and

Tadeo, entitled:
THAT THE STATE SHALL ADOPT A TRADE POLICY THAT WILL GIVE PRIORITY TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DOMESTIC OVER THE EXPORT SECTOR,
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO GRANT SPECIAL CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT TO
ACQUIRE IN OWNERSHIP LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN,
Proposed Resolution No. 374, introduced by Honorable Calderon, Alonto,
Tingson, Maambong, Nolledo and Rama, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCREASE FROM SIXTY TO SEVENTY-FIVE PER
CENTUM CAPITAL OWNERSHIP OF FILIPINO CITIZENS IN CORPORATIONS AND
OTHER ENTITIES FOR THESE
CORPORATIONS TO QUALIFY AS GRANTEES OF FRANCHISES OR CERTIFICATES
TO OPERATE PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TO DISALLOW FOREIGNERS FROM
SITTING IN THE GOVERNING BODY
OR BOARD OF ANY PUBLIC UTILITY,
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SET ASIDE LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN AS
PERMANENT SETTLEMENT AREAS FOR CULTURAL MINORITIES,
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON
ANCESTRAL LANDS AND THE DISPOSITION AND UTILIZATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES FOUND THEREIN,
Proposed Resolution No. 388, introduced by Honorable Rosario Braid and
Bacani, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE ARTICLE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY OF THE NATION A PROVISION TO INCLUDE AIRWAVES AS PART OF
THE NATIONAL PATRIMONY,
Proposed Resolution No. 389, introduced by Honorable Padilla, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING A PROVISION ALLOWING FOREIGN INVESTORS TO
ACQUIRE, HOLD OR OWN LOTS WITH LIMITED AREA, REQUIRED FOR THE
OPERATION OF EXPORT-ORIENTED
INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,
Proposed Resolution No. 401, introduced by Honorable Tadeo, Suarez,
Quesada, Brocka, Jamir, Bennagen, Sarmiento, Villacorta, Gascon, Garcia and
Aquino,
entitled:
SEPARATE ARTICLE ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK FOR A NATIONALIST,
SELF-RELIANT, AND PROGRESSIVE
ECONOMY FOUNDED ON GENUINE INDUSTRIALIZATION GUIDED BY THE
PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND EQUITABLE SHARING,
entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES OF THE VARIOUS
PROFESSIONS TO FILIPINO PROFESSIONALS,
Proposed Resolution No. 432, introduced by Honorable Maambong, Ople,
Natividad and de los Reyes, Jr., entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE OF ANY PROFESSION TO FILIPINO
CITIZENS SAVE IN CASES OF RECIPROCITY TO ALIENS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY
UNDER CONDITIONS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW,
Proposed Resolution No. 453, introduced by Honorable Gascon, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE
PRESERVATION OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES,
Proposed Resolution No. 528, introduced by Honorable Guingona, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE TO
RESTRICT INSTANCES WHEN THE STATE MAY ENGAGE IN BUSINESS
ENDEAVORS,
Proposed
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY,
47, 63, 89, 122, 211, 213, 219, 288, 309, 317, 368, 369, 374, 375, 378, 388,
389, 401, 412, 432, 453, and 528 with the Honorable Villegas, Tadeo, Bacani,
Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Foz, Gascon, Monsod, Natividad, Ople, Romulo,
Sarmiento, Suarez, Uka, Villacorta, Davide, Jr., de los Reyes, Jr., Azcuna,
Nolledo, Guingona, Aquino, Brocka, Tan, Tingson, Jamir, Calderon, Alonto,
Maambong, Rama, Treas, Rosario Braid, Padilla, Quesada, and Garcia as
authors thereof.
(SGD.) BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS
Chairman
Committee on National Economy and Patrimony
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled, To incorporate the National Economy and Patrimony of
the new
Constitution, the following provisions:
ARTICLE ____
National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 1. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable
distribution of
income and wealth, full employment of human, physical and technological
resources, and a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
produced by
the nation for the benefit of the Filipino people, with priority to the welfare of
the poor. In the attainment of these goals, all economic sectors shall
be given optimum opportunity to develop and a broader-based ownership of
private enterprises shall be encouraged.
SECTION 2. Since the use of property bears a social function, all economic
agents in the private sector shall contribute to the common good. Individuals
and private groups shall be given freedom to establish and operate economic
enterprises; subject always, however, to the duty of the State to promote

distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands.
SECTION 3. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With
the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. Such activities
may be directly undertaken by the State, or it may enter into co-production,
joint venture, production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or
corporations or associations at least sixty per cent of whose voting stock or
controlling interest is owned by such citizens. Such agreements shall be for
a period of twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years,
and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of
water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries or industrial uses other
than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure
and
limit of the grant. The Congress may by law allow small-scale utilization of
natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President with the concurrence of Congress, by special law, shall provide
the terms and conditions under which a foreign-owned corporation may
enter
into agreements with the government involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources.
SECTION 4. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest,
or mineral lands, and national parks. Only agricultural lands of the public
domain, which may be further classified by law according to the uses to
which they may be devoted may be alienated to citizens of the Philippines.
No
private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, not to exceed one thousand hectares in area; nor
may any
citizen hold such lands by lease in excess of five hundred hectares or acquire
by purchase or homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares. The Congress,
taking into account conservation, ecological, and developmental
requirements of the natural resources, shall determine by law the size of
lands of the
public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by, or leased to,
any qualified individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions
therefor. The foregoing shall be subject to the requirements of agrarian
reform.
SECTION 5. Upon recommendation of the President, Congress shall

determine by law the specific limits of forest lands and national parks,
marking clearly
their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national
parks shall be conserved and not be diminished.
SECTION 6. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
SECTION 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6 of this Article, a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship
may be a transferee of private lands solely for residential purposes, not to
exceed an area of one thousand square meters.
SECTION 8. The President, after consultations with the appropriate public
agencies and the private sector, including labor and peasant organizations,
shall
recommend to Congress and implement an integrated and coordinated
approach to national development.
Until Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic Development
Authority shall function as the independent planning agency of the
government.
SECTION 9. The Congress shall reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per cent of whose voting stock or
controlling interest is owned by such citizens or such higher percentage as
Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments when the national
interest
so dictates.
SECTION 10. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary
authority, the majority of whose governing board shall come from the private
sector, which shall provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking,
and credit. It shall have supervisory authority over the operations of banks
and exercise such regulatory authority as may be provided by law over the
operations of finance companies and other institutions performing similar
functions. Until Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of the
Philippines, operating under existing laws, shall function as the central
monetary
authority.
SECTION 11. The Congress may, by general law, provide for the formation,
organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or
controlled corporations may be created or established only in the interest of

the common good.
SECTION 12. The State may, in the interest of the common good and the
peoples security against external aggression, establish and operate vital
industries, and upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public
ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the
government.
SECTION 13. In times of national emergency, when the common good so
requires, the State may temporarily take over or direct the operation of any
privately
owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Such takeover
or direction of operation shall be only for the duration of the state of
emergency.
SECTION 14. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public
interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair
competition shall be allowed.
SECTION 15. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for
the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the
Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the
Philippines at least two-thirds of whose voting stock or controlling
interest is owned by such citizens. Neither shall any such franchise or right
be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment,
alteration, or repeal by Congress when the common good so requires. The
State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general
public.
The Committee on National Economy and Patrimony to which was referred
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SET ASIDE LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN AS
PERMANENT SETTLEMENT AREAS FOR CULTURAL MINORITIES,
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON
ANCESTRAL LANDS AND THE DISPOSITION AND UTILIZATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES FOUND THEREIN,
Proposed
PATRIMONY A PROVISION ON ANCESTRAL LANDS,
be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 375 and 378 with
the Honorable Villegas, Tadeo, Bacani, Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Foz, Gascon,
Monsod, Natividad, Ople, Romulo, Sarmiento, Suarez, Uka, Villacorta, Tingson
and Treas as authors thereof.
(SGD.) BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS
Chairman
Committee on National and Patrimony
PATRIMONY A PROVISION ON ANCESTRAL LANDS
Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled, To incorporate in the Article on the National Economy
and
Patrimony of the new Constitution the following provision:
ARTICLE ____
National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 1. The State, consistent with the provisions of this Constitution,
shall guarantee the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands
to
ensure their economic and social well-being and shall consider indigenous
customary law governing proprietary rights in determining the ownership
and
extent of the ancestral domain. The ancestral lands shall be held in trust by
the indigenous community for the benefit of their future generations.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that Commissioner Villegas be
recognized for his sponsorship speech.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER VILLEGAS

MR. VILLEGAS: Mr. Vice-President, I would like to call the attention of the
body to a modified version of Committee Report No. 24. It is a corrected
copy;
it was modified for the bicameral legislature. This was distributed this
morning. This is what we are going to use for purposes of the interpellation
and
amendments. The other committee report which was not changed is
Committee Report No. 32 on ancestral lands.
The first two sections of the proposed Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony of the nation are packed with principles that shall serve as
constitutional guidelines for the various branches of the government for the
promotion of the common good in the economic sphere.
Section 1 opens with a statement that The State shall develop a self-reliant
and independent national economy. Economic self-reliance is a primary
objective of a developing country that is keenly aware of over-dependence
on external assistance for even its most basic needs. It does not mean
autarky or
economic reclusion; rather, it means avoiding mendicancy in the
international economic community. Independence refers to the freedom from
undue foreign
control of the national economy, especially in such strategic industries as in
the development of natural resources and public utilities.
The three traditional goals of every national economy are then enumerated.
The usual order, however, is reversed; economic growth is mentioned last,
with
equity being given prominence as the first objective of national economic
development. The goal of reducing economic inequality is reiterated in an
explicit statement of the emerging concept in social philosophy: the
preferential option or love for the poor. The priority afforded to the welfare of
the
poor in the production of goods and services is further fully developed in a
separate Article on Social Justice, which we have just approved on Second
Reading a major innovation of the new Constitution. The reference to the
national product being for the benefit of the Filipino people tries to guarantee
that national development efforts shall give priority to the needs of the local
population rather than foreign consumers. Without unduly tying the hands of
the policy-makers on the appropriate balance between production for the
domestic market and for export, this constitutional mandate takes
cognizance of the
fact that the Philippines is a resource-rich and populous nation in which
export does not have to play as vital a role as it did in Japan, Korea or
Singapore, in which production for export was given the highest priority
because of the paucity of natural resources and/or the small size of the
population.
Equal opportunities for all economic sectors to develop are guaranteed by
the Constitution. The use of the word optimum suggests sufficient flexibility
for policy-makers whether in the executive or the legislative to decide
on the appropriate balance, say, between agriculture and industry at any
stage
of our development process.
Section 1 ends with an elucidation of the objective of equity in the
distribution of wealth by articulating the ideal of a broader-based ownership
of
private enterprises.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Let the Chairman finish first.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think because he wants to proceed to the second section,
he is through with the first section. My question has to do with the first
section.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is the Gentleman through with the first section?
MR. BENGZON: This is the period of sponsorship.
MR. BENNAGEN: I am sorry.
MR. VILLEGAS: Section 2 presents the twin principles on which a humane
economic society is to be based: the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.
The
first principle is the philosophical route of people power: what can be
performed efficiently and competently by individuals and private groups
should not
be absorbed by higher bodies, least of all, by the State. The role that must
be played by the state is a subsidiary one. It only intervenes when private
initiative is helpless because of the complexity or magnitude of the problem.
The principle of solidarity more honored in the breach in the Philippines
requires individuals and private groups to deliberately contribute to the
common good in the performance of their daily tasks. This principle clashes
with
the assumption of laissez-faire economics which overly glorifies free
enterprise as the road to economic prosperity for all. Experience has shown
that
there is no invisible hand which automatically promotes the common good in

an environment where everyone is encouraged to pursue his selfish
economic
interest. Although it is not necessary to constitutionalize any specific
economic philosophy, the phrase private enterprise comes closest to the
type of
economy described in Section 2. The term private includes not only the
private business sector but all private voluntary organizations such as
cause-oriented groups, cooperatives, foundations and other nonprofit
organizations.
Section 2 first mentions the principle of solidarity. All economic agents in the
private sector shall contribute to the common good. It opens with the very
timely reminder that private property as a social function cannot be
considered absolute. The limitations to private property and private
enterprise are
reiterated in the proviso that freedom of initiative in the economic sphere
shall always be subject to the duty of the state to promote distributive
justice and to intervene when the common good so demands.
The Article then proceeds to restate the regalian doctrine that all natural
resources belong to the state. The exploration, development and utilization
of
natural resources are limited to corporations at least 60 percent of the voting
stock of which is owned by Filipinos. Agreements with the development of
natural resources can be for as long as 50 years, a period considered long
enough to attract both local and foreign capital.
An innovation of this Constitution is the special mention of small-scale
utilization of natural resources; for example, small-scale coal or gold mining
as
well as cooperative fish farming. Again, this focus on small-scale natural
resource utilization jibes with what can be considered a distinct flavor of the
1986 Constitution the preferential concern for the poor or the
underprivileged.
In the classification of lands of the public domain, there is a return to the
1935 Constitution which limited the categories to three agriculture, forest
or timber and mineral lands. A fourth category is suggested; national parks
which should be segregated from existing timber lands and preserved
permanently
as forests for ecological and recreational purposes. The size of agricultural
lands that can be leased by private corporations is limited to a maximum of
1,000 hectares. Individual citizens can lease a maximum of 500 hectares or
acquire by purchase or homestead not more than 24 hectares. These are the
outer
limits beyond which Congress cannot go in determining the size of lands of

the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by or leased to
any
qualified individual, corporation or association. All these are subject to the
requirements of land reform, as contained in the provisions of the new
Article on Social Justice.
The committee report continues to limit land ownership to Filipino citizens
with the exception of a natural-born citizen who has lost his Philippine
citizenship and who is allowed to own residential land not to exceed an area
of 1,000 square meters. There were some in the Committee who disagreed
with
such a restrictive policy and reserved their right to introduce amendments in
the plenary session. Another issue in which the Committee was divided was
the
question of foreign participation in the ownership of public utilities. The
majority decided on increasing the minimum Filipino ownership required to
66
2/3 from the existing 60 percent.
The National Economic and Development Authority has been removed as a
constitutional body and may be abolished by Congress if the need for it no
longer
exists. There was a consensus in the Committee that an economic planning
agency should not be constitutionalized since formal economic planning is
not an
indispensable part of managing the national economy. However, until the
legislative body provides otherwise, the existing NEDA shall function as the
planning agency under the executive.
On the other hand, a central monetary authority has been retained as a
constitutional body. The majority of its governing board shall not be
occupying
positions in the executive branch. Either they shall be representatives from
the private sector or full-time members of the Monetary Board appointed by
the
President for a fixed term. Until the legislature provides otherwise, the
Central Bank of the Philippines shall function as the central monetary
authority.
Lastly, it should be mentioned that provisions on social justice and land
reform have been transposed to the new Article on Social Justice. Although
there
is a separate Article on Social Justice, it must be stressed that the whole
Article on the National Economy and Patrimony of the nation is permeated
through and through by the spirit of social justice. The preferential concern
for the poor is an underlying theme. This concern, however, is neither

exclusive nor excluding. It is not exclusive because the poor were considered
not in the narrow economic sense. Anyone who suffers privation
economically,
politically, culturally or spiritually is considered poor. It is neither excluding
because the preferential treatment for the poor does not in any way lead
to a condemnation of those who are better off in life. The common good
precisely covers every single member of society and is inherently
incompatible with
any ideology based on class conflict or struggle. The only effective binding
force of a pluralistic society is a spirit of solidarity based on both justice
and love.
And finally, let me just call your attention to Committee Report No. 32 which
is on the issue of ancestral lands which Commissioner Bennagen can explain
in
greater detail.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, very briefly. Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
May I ask the Committee Chairman one clarificatory question?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. BENNAGEN: Did I hear right that the Chairmans interpretation of an
independent national economy is freedom from undue foreign control? What
is the
meaning of undue foreign control?
MR. VILLEGAS: Undue foreign control is foreign control which sacrifices
national sovereignty and the welfare of the Filipino people in the economic
sphere.
MR. BENNAGEN: Why does it have to be qualified still with the word undue?
Why not simply freedom from foreign control? I think that is the meaning of
independence, because as phrased, it still allows for foreign control.
MR. VILLEGAS: It will now depend on the interpretation because if, for
example, we retain the 60/40 possibility in the cultivation of natural
resources, 40
percent involves some control; not total control, but some control.
MR. BENNAGEN: In any case, I think in due time we will propose some
amendments.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. But we will be open to an improvement of the
phraseology.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any other interpellator?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, it is the general sentiment of the body that the
period of interpellations should be limited to two sessions morning and
afternoon. This is also the sentiment of the Chairman of the Committee on
Rules, so I move that this sentiment be approved by the body, that the
interpellation should be limited to two sessions.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion that the
interpellations on this Article be limited to two sessions?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Bengzon would like to be recognized.
MR. BENGZON: It would not really be fair both to the Committee and to the
Commissioners if we apply this motion this morning because we already lost
two
hours. I mean, the Committee has already lost two hours. So, I suggest that
perhaps we start this rule, if ever, beginning this afternoon.
MR. RAMA: I accept the amendment.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Anyway, we proceed with the interpellations. There
might not be as many interpellators as sometimes we expect. We might be
able to
terminate the period of interpellations within or early tomorrow morning.
Why do we not just continue the interpellations now and then consider the
motion
this afternoon, in case we find that there are too many interpellators?
MR. RAMA: That is fine, Mr. Vice-President. I ask that Commissioner Nolledo
be recognized to interpellate.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. Will the Committee Chairman
please yield to some questions?
MR. VILLEGAS: Very gladly.
On page 2, line 10, I would like to know the meaning of the term full
control. In political law, when we talk of control, an authority can supersede
the
decision of a lower authority. Does it apply to this situation?
MR. VILLEGAS: That proceeds from the statement that all natural resources
are owned by the State. And so, that full control is deducted from the fact
that
these resources belong to the State. But then the State can, of course,
delegate some part of that control through lease of those that can be
alienated.
MR. NOLLEDO: Suppose a juridical entity is given the power to exploit natural
resources and, of course, there are decisions made by the governing board of
that juridical entity, can the State change the decisions of the governing
board of that entity based on the words full control?
MR. VILLEGAS: If it is within the context of the contract, I think the State
cannot violate the laws of the land.
MR. NOLLEDO: In relation to line 23, with reference to the words Filipino
citizens, disregarding the word cooperative since that is self-explanatory,
do I understand it right that when we say that Congress may by law allow
small-scale utilization of natural resources, the same must be done only by
individual Filipino citizens or by entities controlled by Filipino citizens?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think the spirit of the Committee is that since this is smallscale, it should refer to single proprietorships and, therefore, to
individuals. Examples are what they call camote mining in the coal mines
of Cebu.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to line 29, I spoke about this before the
Rotarians of Makati, and they asked me if I can convey to the Commission
their query
which is: What do you mean by the term large-scale exploration,
development, etc.? Is the term large-scale within a particular area or
particular
region, or in the light of the entire country?
MR. VILLEGAS: The term large-scale usually refers to very capital-intensive
activities like, for example, petroleum mining, copper mining, et cetera. It
refers to the requirement for capital.
MR. NOLLEDO: Is capital the only factor that should be considered or is it the
economic importance? If an entity, for example, will export products that
will contribute to the national economy, will the Commissioner consider that
large-scale also?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely, yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: In Sections 3, 9 and 15, the Committee stated local or Filipino
equity and foreign equity; namely, 60-40 in Section 3, 60-40 in Section 9,
and
2/3-1/3 in Section 15.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. NOLLEDO: In teaching law, we are always faced with this question:
Where do we base the equity requirement, is it on the authorized capital
stock, on
the subscribed capital stock, or on the paid-up capital stock of a
corporation? Will the Committee please enlighten me on this?
MR. VILLEGAS: We have just had a long discussion with the members of the
team from the UP Law Center who provided us a draft. The phrase that is
contained
here which we adopted from the UP draft is 60 percent of voting stock.
MR. NOLLEDO: That must be based on the subscribed capital stock, because
unless declared delinquent, unpaid capital stock shall be entitled to vote.
With respect to an investment by one corporation in another corporation,
say, a corporation with 60-40 percent equity invests in another corporation
which
is permitted by the Corporation Code, does the Committee adopt the
grandfather rule?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, that is the understanding of the Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, we need additional Filipino capital?

MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: This is with respect to Section 7 on page 3. We know that all
Members of the Commission received telegrams from Filipino doctors of
medicine,
who have embraced American citizenship and are now residing in the United
States, asking us to reconsider this report. What is the reaction of the
Committee? They wanted to delete 1,000 sq.m. and possibly leave the
determination of the area to Congress. So they would like the provision to
read:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6 of this Article, a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of private lands solely for residential purposes, AS DETERMINED
BY LAW.
Is the Committee amenable to that amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: As I said in the sponsorship speech, the Committee was
divided on this issue so we are open to amendments on this specific
question.
MR. NOLLEDO: I filed a resolution on idle lands. We will remember that the
honorable Chairman of this Committee and I went to Butuan City and there
the
people told us that there are vast tracts of idle or abandoned lands in
Mindanao. Has the Committee adopted any provision on how to deal with
such idle
lands?
MR. VILLEGAS: We considered that as implied by the statement that all these
provisions are subject to the requirements of land reform as suggested in the
Article on Social Justice. So we would leave that to Congress to decide on the
basis of all the principles articulated in the Article on Social Justice.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President; and I also thank the Chairman
of the Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

Will the Committee yield to a few clarificatory questions?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: Page 4, Section 8, lines 7 and 8 thereof, states that the NEDA
shall function as the independent planning agency of the government. Would
it
not be better if the NEDA is not independent, but rather should follow the
socioeconomic thinking of the executive branch?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. That is really the meaning so we are open to a
rephrasing. The NEDA is independent of Congress but it is under the
executive branch. It
is under the Office of the President, but probably that can be clarified.
MR. AZCUNA: With respect to Section 14 on page 5, regarding combinations
in restraint of trade, would it not be better to limit this to domestic trade so
as not to prevent the State when it deems it necessary to form cartels for its
export products as retaliatory measures against predatory trade practices of
foreign countries?
MR. VILLEGAS: Actually the reason the first sentence talks about monopolies
in general is that in the 1973 Constitution, the reference was only to private
monopolies. So the State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the
public interest so requires. The implication is that State monopolies may be
actually organized but they should be regulated for the common good. So,
the possibility of State monopolies being organized is considered here.
MR. AZCUNA: With respect to the phrase The State may . . . operate vital
industries found on Section 12, is there no need to define these vital
industries to forewarn the private sector that if they go into these fields
they may be taken over?
MR. VILLEGAS: We think that determination should be left to Congress
because there is so much dynamism in technology that, for example,
notwithstanding a
whole discussion centered on how vital telecommunications and related
industries are, still, it was difficult for the body to decide on which are vital
industries. So that is better left to legislation.
MR. AZCUNA: That is all.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Bengzon would like to say something.
MR. BENGZON: Besides, that is preceded by the phrase peoples security

against external aggression.
MR. AZCUNA: That is all; I thank the Committee. Thank you, Mr. VicePresident.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President, will the Committee yield to a few
questions?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On lines 18 to 24, Section 3 of Committee Report No. 24,
mention is made of fisheries and granting fishery rights stating that the
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. And then, it also
says:
Congress may by law allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming in rivers, lakes, bays,
and lagoons.
Are we to understand that this should be interpreted also in relation to
Section 7 of the Article on Social Justice, meaning, that no fisheries right shall
be granted to anyone within the communal marine and fishing resources?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely, that should be taken in that context.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Does the phrase small-scale utilization of natural
resources also refer to small-scale cooperative fish farming?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Are preferential rights always given to subsistence
fishermen? Is that the correct interpretation?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The committee report enumerated Resolution No. 432,
authored by this Member and Commissioners Maambong, Ople, and
Natividad; and
Resolution No. 412, authored by Commissioner Rosario Braid, limiting the
practice in the Philippines of the various professions to Filipino professionals.
I do not see any proposal on the matter in this committee report. May we
know why? Were these rejected by the Committee or were these referred to
another
committee?
MR. VILLEGAS: They were referred to the Committee on General Provisions.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, they were not totally rejected but referred to another
committee?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Was the referral with a favorable endorsement as to
whether to adopt them or to be completely silent about them?
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Rosario Braid will answer the question.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: To set the records straight, I am afraid those proposals
were never sent nor referred to our Committee. So they must have been lost
on
the way.
MR. VILLEGAS: We will be willing to entertain amendments on the specific
issue.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I thank the Chairman of the Committee, the Floor Leader
and the Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: May we know the next interpellator?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Rodrigo would like to be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Vice-President, just a question or two to Commissioner
Bennagen regarding Committee Report No. 32.
The last sentence of this report reads:
The ancestral lands shall be held in trust by the indigenous community for
the benefit of their future generations.
The phrase in trust means ownership cannot be given to anybody. Is that

right?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, not to individuals outside the community.
MR. RODRIGO: Not to individuals outside the community but how about
individuals within the community? Can they own?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. It accepts a wider range of ownership from individuals
to groups of families and then to the community.
MR. RODRIGO: So, it is possible that in time, all these ancestral lands might
be owned individually by members of the community?
MR. BENNAGEN: Historically that has not taken place and we do not see it as
taking place, unless there is some radical change in the social system.
MR. RODRIGO: But is there a constitutional prohibition in this proposed
Article or section to safeguard these ancestral lands so that they will remain
in
trust for the whole community, instead of being owned individually?
MR. BENNAGEN: The spirit of the provision is towards that effect that the
ancestral lands should never evolve to every individual member but should
be
kept in perpetuity for the community while recognizing the minor variations
in ownership because certain types of lands could be owned individually
while
other types could be owned by families or by groups of families or clans.
MR. RODRIGO: I ask this because there seems to be an inconsistency if not
contradiction between the previous sentence and this last sentence.
The last sentence reads: The ancestral lands shall be held in trust by the
indigenous community . . . while the preceding sentence states that the
indigenous customary laws governing proprietary rights determine the
ownership and extent of the ancestral domain. Which will prevail, the last
sentence
which states that these ancestral lands should be held merely in trust, or
the preceding sentence which says that there can be proprietary rights and
ownership over these lands?
MR. BENNAGEN: This seems inconsistent because when the previous part
speaks of proprietary rights, it includes those whole range of rights which I
mentioned earlier but still within the framework of that particular community.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I would like to ask the Committee a few
questions.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Section 14 states: The State shall regulate or prohibit
monopolies when the public interest so requires. I have heard the Chairman
say that
this would not prohibit the State to set up monopolies for the common good.
MR. RAMA: I was thinking, for instance, of the procedure or the system in
Japan where tobacco is the monopoly of the State and serves substantially
the
common good and its revenues form a substantial part of the budget of the
Japanese government.
Therefore, the monopoly on tobacco is a desirable monopoly; first, it is
hazardous to health; and second, the State converts this kind of industry into
something that benefits the country. On the other hand, although the
statement has been made by the Chairman that this would not prohibit the
State from
setting up monopolies, the second sentence in Section 14 seems to
contradict that statement because it states: No combinations in restraint of
trade or
unfair competition shall be allowed. It is addressed to both the State and
the private sector. So, does the Commissioner think that there should be
some
kind of a phrase here that would allow the government or the State to set up
monopolies that would serve the common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: The second sentence is interpreted in the context of the
antitrust legislation or the jurisprudence on antitrust legislation, for example,
in
the United States, to the extent that combinations in restraint of trade or
unfair competition actually prejudice the consumers and the people. Then
that
is where the law comes in. But precisely, there are certain monopolies which
actually favor the consumers because of the economies of scale since we do
not
have unnecessary duplication of resources. However, these types of
monopolies have to be regulated.
MR. RAMA: But this will not prohibit the State from setting up monopolies for
the common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: It will not.
MR. RAMA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: May I ask the Chairman of the Committee some questions?
MR. VILLEGAS: Gladly.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we Filipinos are
very much concerned about our denuded forests so much so when experts
say that
within the next 10 years or less, we might become a Sahara Desert here in
the Philippines. Has the Committee at all considered the possibility of, say, a
ten-year or twenty-year logging ban on endangered forest lands, except
probably for building materials that we might need for domestic purposes in
our
country? Has the Committee considered that?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely. In fact, the provision on Section 5 is all about the
forest limits being determined by law and not being diminished. Actually,
there is an additional category of national parks which would not even permit
any logging whatsoever in perpetuity. So that is definitely the spirit of
Section 5.
MR. TINGSON: Our sad experience is that when something like this is left for
the implementation by Congress or by the lawmaking body, then a good
number of
politicians with self-aggrandizing purposes would work against the welfare of
our country and this has actually happened. I am just wondering if it would
not be better for us to state a certain period here, upon ratification of this
Constitution, that there will be a complete logging ban on endangered forest
lands, say, 10 years or so. Would the Committee consider an amendment
along that line?
MR. VILLEGAS: We will definitely consider an amendment, but let me just

give the Commissioner the results of the public hearings we had. According
to the
people from the forestry sector, there are so many technical issues involved
here. An example is to determine what areas should be considered as forests
in
perpetuity; what types of trees should be planted; or whether or not
ecological considerations can also be complied with for some fast-growing
trees like
Albiccia Falcata, Acacia Mangium and others. There are just so many
technical questions involved in reforestation that we do not think the
Commission has
the time nor the resources to actually make very explicit statements about
forest policies.
MR. TINGSON: I agree with the Commissioner, except that probably, it would
be feasible to state some kind of a time limit there. I have filed a resolution
along that line, and I am now asking for technical data from our Minister of
Natural Resources, Minister Maceda, for my amendment later on.
My second question is this: The Filipino nationals abroad who are able and
willing to help develop our country have lost their Philippine citizenship. We
are aware of the fact that many of our countrymen in the United States
cannot work there as practicing physicians or doctors unless they become
citizens of
the country, and yet their hearts really are still with us. They do not want to
forget the Philippines altogether. As a matter of fact, they do send quite
a goodly amount of their dollar earnings from America to help develop our
country. Would the Committee earnestly look into the possibility of giving
these
countrymen of ours, many of whom still count themselves really as Filipinos
by heart, a greater participation in the development of our national
economy?
Section 1 states that we should be self-reliant and independent in the
development of our national economy. I suppose the Commissioner would
like to say
that as much as possible we will not borrow from abroad. Let us see what we
can do with our own indigenous ability here as Filipinos to develop our
country. Am I right in looking at it that way?
MR. VILLEGAS: We would welcome an amendment along that line. If the
Commissioner wants to go beyond that 1,000 square meters, that can be
considered.
MR. TINGSON: I appreciate that very much. My last question is in relation to
Section 4 which states:
The Congress, taking into account conservation, ecological, and

developmental requirements of the natural resources, shall determine by law
the size of
lands of the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired by, or
leased to, any qualified individual, corporation, or association, and the
conditions therefor. The foregoing shall be subject to the requirements of
agrarian reform.
After having itinerated in this country of ours for a good number of years in
my capacity as an evangelist and a Filipino who loves to see his country
develop to the maximum, and with a feeling of gratitude to people like those
of the various churches, nonprofit corporations such as schools and colleges,
say, in Mindanao, I found out that they have somehow acquired the privilege
of occupying certain pieces of land which happen to be public domain. They
have
been there for the last 20 years or so, yet they have not been allowed to
purchase even just 2,000 square meters of land so that they could continue
operating there. In due time, would it be possible for the Committee to
probably consider an amendment along that line?
MR. VILLEGAS: I do not see the problem being described by the honorable
Commissioner. If the lands are alienable, then there is no reason why private
groups cannot purchase lands within this 24-hectare limit.
MR. TINGSON: These lands belong to the public domain.
The committee report says, . . . the size of lands of the public domain which
may be developed, held or acquired by. I am just wondering whether that
also refers to churches, schools and nonprofit entities. Would they be within
what we call here qualified individuals, corporations or associations?
MR. VILLEGAS: If we go to line 5, probably that is the part that is more
relevant. Line 5 of Section 4 states:
No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, not to exceed one thousand hectares in area; nor
may
any citizen hold such lands by lease in excess of five hundred hectares or
acquire by purchase or homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares.
Is that what the Commissioner would like to amend?
MR. TINGSON: I will write out what I have in mind and I will confer with the
Committee.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong, the Acting Floor Leader, is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized for his
interpellations.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. I would like to seek some
clarifications.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal, I notice that except for the lands of the
public domain, all the other natural resources cannot be alienated and in
respect
to lands of the public domain, private corporations with the required
ownership by Filipino citizens can only lease the same. Necessarily, insofar
as other
natural resources are concerned, it would only be the State which can
exploit, develop, explore and utilize the same. However, the State may enter
into a
joint venture, coproduction or production-sharing. Is that not correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Consequently, henceforth upon the approval of this
Constitution, no timber or forest concessions, permits or authorization can be
exclusively
granted to any citizen of the Philippines nor to any corporation qualified to
acquire lands of the public domain?
MR. VILLEGAS: Would Commissioner Monsod like to comment on that? I think
his answer is yes.
MR. DAVIDE: So, what will happen now to licenses or concessions earlier
granted by the Philippine government to private corporations or to Filipino
citizens? Would they be deemed repealed?
MR. VILLEGAS: This is not applied retroactively. They will be respected.
MR. DAVIDE: In effect, they will be deemed repealed?
MR. VILLEGAS: No.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you for that information. I will go to another point. Insofar
as fisheries is concerned, it is provided in the proposed Section 3 that
the legislature may by law allow small-scale utilization of natural resources
by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming in rivers, lakes,
bays and lagoons. Must this be construed to be subject to the preferential
rights we had earlier granted to the marginal fishermen?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Section 11 touches on the formation, organization, or regulation
of private corporations. As worded it will now read: The Congress may, by
general law, provide for the formation organization, or regulation of private
corporations. In both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the language used
was
shall not, except by general law. May we know the difference?
MR. VILLEGAS: Actually, after discussing this specific section with the UP Law
group, we were open to going back to the old statement.
MR. DAVIDE: We have to go back to the old statement, otherwise it would be
interpreted to mean that these corporations can be organized by whatever
means.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right. Commissioner Suarez can clarify this.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Vice-President, when this matter was discussed with the
members of the UP Law Center, precisely, the point raised by the
Commissioner was
taken up. It could mean that there will be a proliferation of corporations
which may be violative of this particular Section 11.
MR. DAVIDE: Another point is that government-owned or controlled
corporations can no longer be organized under that general law. So,
government-owned or
controlled corporations under this present proposal will have to be organized
by means of special charters?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: And also their subsidiaries? Or may subsidiaries of governmentowned or controlled corporations be organized under the general corporation
law?
MR. SUAREZ: In the matter of subsidiaries, no; under the general corporation
law.
MR. DAVIDE: In effect, would these subsidiaries of government-owned or

controlled corporations become private corporations if they are to be
organized
under the law?
MR. SUAREZ: In effect, yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Yet it might collide with certain provisions we approved earlier,
especially the matter of prohibition of government officials and employees
which would include government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.
MR. SUAREZ: That was the meaning of the exercise with the UP Law Center
group to provide for all these safeguards, taking into consideration all the
other provisions that had already been approved by the Commission.
MR. DAVIDE: For instance, in the Article on the Constitutional Commissions
and Agencies and in some of the prohibitions against public officers and
employees, we would include public officers or employees in governmentowned or controlled corporations with charters and their subsidiaries. So,
shall we
not also compel the creation or establishment of subsidiaries of governmentowned and controlled corporations under a charter and not under the
general
corporation law?
MR. SUAREZ: By a special law.
MR. DAVIDE: It must be under a special law, otherwise we will convert a
subsidiary into a private corporation.
MR. SUAREZ: There is logic in the Commissioners presentation of this
problem. The Committee will consider that at the proper time.
MR. DAVIDE: Another point is that since it is now to be mandated that
government-owned and controlled corporations will have to be organized not
under the
general law on corporations but by special charters, what will happen to
existing government-owned and controlled corporations organized under the
corporation law?
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Monsod will answer that.
MR. MONSOD: I believe we have to make a distinction here. Under Section
11, the proposal of the Committee is that government-owned or controlled
corporations need not be by original charter. I think that is the intent of the
Committee. There are government-owned or controlled corporations that

were
organized under original charters and there are those that were organized
under the general corporation law. It is not the intent of the Committee under
Section 11 that from now on all government-owned and controlled
corporations should be organized under original charters.
MR. DAVIDE: With that clarification, would government-owned and controlled
corporations organized under the corporation law be considered private
corporations?
MR. MONSOD: Yes. As a matter of fact, if the Commissioner recalls in the
previous provisions we have approved, there were sections in which we
made a
distinction between government corporations under original charters and
government corporations and subsidiaries under the corporation law,
particularly in
the provision on the civil service.
MR. DAVIDE: Would it not open the floodgates to a circumvention of our
doctrine of a public office as a public trust, including therein governmentowned
and controlled corporations because henceforth the government could
circumvent it by merely organizing supposedly a government corporation
under the
corporation law and the outcome will be a private corporation?
MR. MONSOD: I believe the position of the Committee is that Congress
should make a distinction at that time between a corporation performing
government
functions and a corporation performing proprietary or business functions.
And there is a time during which such distinction can be made when
corporations
are being suggested for establishment.
MR. DAVIDE: So we will leave it to Congress to determine whether the
organization of a government-owned and controlled corporation to exercise
governmental
functions should be by special charter, or whether if it is to exercise
proprietary functions, it should be within the general law on corporation.
MR. MONSOD: That is up to the judgment and discretion of Congress.
MR. DAVIDE: I will go to another point.
Under Section 15 on franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization

for the operation of a public utility, we notice that the restriction,
provided in the 1973 Constitution that it should not be exclusive in character,
is no longer provided. Therefore, a franchise, certificate or any form of
authorization for the operation of a public utility may be exclusive in
character.
MR. VILLEGAS: I think, yes.
MR. DAVIDE: It may be yes. But would it not violate precisely the thrust
against monopolies?
MR. VILLEGAS: The question is, we do not include the provision about the
franchise being exclusive in character.
MR. SUAREZ: This matter was taken up during the Committee meetings. The
example of the public utility given was the MERALCO. If there is a
proliferation of
public utilities engaged in the servicing of the needs of the public for electric
current, this may lead to more problems for the nation. That is why the
Commissioner is correct in saying that that will constitute an exemption to
the general rule that there must be no monopoly of any kind, but it could be
operative in the case of public utilities.
MR. DAVIDE: Does not the Commissioner believe that the other side of the
coin may also be conducive to more keen competition and better public
service?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner may be right.
MR. DAVIDE: Does not the Commissioner believe that we should restore the
qualification that it should not be exclusive in character?
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, under the Commissioners proposal, Metro
Manila, for example, could be serviced by two or more public utilities similar
to or
identical with what MERALCO is giving to the public?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner feels that that may create or generate
improvement in the services?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because if we now allow an exclusive grant of a franchise,
that might not be conducive to public service.
MR. SUAREZ: We will consider that in the committee level.

MR. MONSOD: With the Commissioners permission, may I just amplify this.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Monsod would like to make a clarification.
MR. MONSOD: I believe the Commissioner is addressing himself to a situation
where it lends itself to more than one franchise. For example, electric power,
it is possible that within a single grid, we may have different distribution
companies. So the Commissioner is right in that sense that perhaps in some
situations, nonexclusivity may be good for the public. But in the case of
power generation, this may be a natural activity that can only be generated
by
one company, in which case, prohibiting exclusive franchise may not be in
the public interest.
MR. DAVIDE: The point is that we should leave it to Congress to determine
what would be the extent and scope of a particular franchise. But as worded
now,
we do not embody into a particular franchise, certificate or authority the
inherent nonexclusive character of the same.
Another point I would like to clarify is in the same section. Section 15 does
not provide for a maximum period or the lifetime of the franchise, authority
or certificate. May we know the reason?
MR. VILLEGAS: Regarding the length, again we would leave that to Congress
because there are so many conditions in different public utilities that we
cannot
determine right now.
MR. SUAREZ: May we point out again the things that were brought up during
the Committee meetings. Let us take the case of MERALCO. If MERALCO will
be given
a franchise for, say, 50 years, what will happen after the expiration of the
franchise? There will be a dismantling of the services being furnished by
MERALCO and the public may thereby be prejudiced. That is why we in the
Committee felt that the duration of the franchise should be left to Congress.
We
could not simply limit it to, say, 25 years renewable for another 25 years.
MR. DAVIDE: In the other portion of the proposal, when it comes to water
rights, the extent of the use would be the governing principle. But here I
believe
the Constitution itself must fix a certain limit, but allowing Congress to allow
a renewal; the phrase renewable for another 25 years was the wording of
the 1973 Constitution. So, we will not grant perpetual right to a particular
entity.
MR. SUAREZ: What we are saying is that under Section 15, we are dealing
with public utilities. There may be a point to what the Commissioner is
bringing
up, but that was the sense that was elevated in the committee level.
MR. DAVIDE: Finally on Section 14. There is no qualification anymore as to
the nature of the monopoly, unlike that in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions
where
private monopolies are the ones prohibited. But in Section 14, the word
private no longer appears. May we know the justification of the Committee
because
I remember that the Committee, in answer to a question of Commissioner
Rama, admitted that the government may still have a monopoly.
MR. DAVIDE: But here, with the deletion of the word private, it would mean
that neither private nor public entity can have monopoly.
MR. VILLEGAS: No. The Commissioner should please take a look at the two
verbs regulate or prohibit. When the word regulate was inserted, that
means
that there can be monopolies as long as they are regulated.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, they may be allowed but regulated. But when it comes to
prohibition, because the State is given an option, it can either be absolute
prohibition or partial prohibition in the sense that that is part of regulation?
MR. DAVIDE: When the Committee deleted the word private, does it mean
that government can be prohibited to engage in a monopoly?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely yes, because there were so many cases under the
Marcos regime where certain government monopolies were completely
against public
interest and, therefore, there should have been a prohibition against those
kinds of government monopolies.
MR. DAVIDE: If the idea is really to promote the private sector, may we not
provide here that the government can, in no case, practice monopoly except
in
certain areas?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, because in the economic field there are definitely areas
where the State can intervene and can actually get involved in monopolies
for
the public good.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, we have provisions here allowing such a monopoly in times
of national emergency.
MR. VILLEGAS: Not even in emergency; for the continuing welfare of
consumers.
MR. MONSOD: May we just make a distinction? As we know, there are natural
monopolies or what we call structural monopolies. Structural monopolies
are
monopolies not by the nature of their activities, like electric power, for
example, but by the nature of the market. There may be instances where the
market has not developed to such an extent that it will only allow, say, one
steel company. Structural monopoly is not by the nature of the business
itself. It is possible under these circumstances that the State may be the
appropriate vehicle for such a monopoly.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President, members and
Chairman of the Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Colayco be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I would like to ask some questions on Section 8, page 4. Under this section,
the President shall recommend to Congress an integrated and coordinated
approach to national development with prior consultation with public
agencies and the private sector. May I know to what particular persons or
professions
the phrase private sector refers?
MR. VILLEGAS: May Commissioner Monsod answer that.
MR. MONSOD: I guess that should be read in the context of the different
private sectors that have an interest or relevance to the plan involved. Let us
say
that it is the industrial plan of the government, then there should be capital,
labor, suppliers and so on. I guess this should be read that people without
any interest in or relevance to that plan should not be consulted.
MR. COLAYCO: I hope Commissioner Monsod will not consider this question
personal. Would the Commissioner have any idea on whether the decision of
Minister
Solita Monsod regarding importation was reached after consultation with the
private sector, especially with the businessmen?
MR. MONSOD: As far as I know from reading the papers, the appropriate
consultations were made with the sectors that are affected by such policies.
MR. COLAYCO: But the Commissioner will notice that Minister Concepcion,
whose ministry is directly affected by the policy, is against it. I wonder if he
was consulted here.
MR. VILLEGAS: I can assure the Commissioner that he was consulted.
MR. COLAYCO: The Chairman mentioned the National Economic and
Development Authority as an independent planning agency of the
government. I suppose that
decision was formulated by the NEDA, of which Minister Monsod is the head.
Am I correct?
MR. MONSOD: I believe that the word independent here, as we answered
Commissioner Azcuna, was meant to be independent of the legislature
because the NEDA
under the present law is under the Office of the President.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. In other words, the members of that agency are
appointed by the President?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: The President heads the NEDA.
MR. MONSOD: The President is the Chairman of the NEDA.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. Section 10 of the committee report recommends that the
majority of the central monetary authority be appointed from the private
sector.
My question is addressed to both the Chairman and Commissioner Monsod:
Would the Committee advise this composition with reference to the NEDA?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.

MR. MONSOD: During the Committee hearings, there were proposals to
change the composition of the governing body not only of the Monetary
Board but also of
the NEDA. That is why if we notice in this Article, we did not constitutionalize
the NEDA anymore unlike in the 1973 Constitution. We are leaving it up to
Congress to determine whether or not the NEDA is needed later on. The idea
of the Committee is that if we are going for less government and more
private
sector initiative, later on it may not be necessary to have a planning agency.
Thus, it may not be necessary to constitutionalize a planning agency
anymore.
So this provision leaves room for the legislature not only to revise the
composition of the governing body, but also to remove the NEDA once it is
no
longer needed in its judgment.
MR. COLAYCO: I am satisfied with the Commissioners answer.
Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized for
her interpellations.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Vice-President, I wish to raise some questions on
some provisions which did not explicitly express my concern, and it is the
need to
look at economic development within the international economic order. My
views are premised on the fact that although we have made considerable
progress in
various areas of national development, this could be negated by the
inequitable international trade and other factors linked to the economic
order. I would
hope that during the period of amendments, I may propose the need for the
country to cooperate with other Third World countries in working towards
more
equitable international trade relationships as a matter of economic policy.
This would, therefore, move towards South-South trade and preferential
trade
schemes among developing countries. The latter could cooperate in the

production and consumption of appropriate goods and technology.
This would also relate to the problem of technology transfer and attendant
effect such as dependency. This would mean coming up with more equitable
provisions in terms of technology transfer agreements. Putting more muscle
to the existing boards which govern technology transfer like the Technology
Transfer Board and other departments under the Ministry of Trade would be
examples in the operationalization of these provisions. This would lead to
desirable ends such as the strengthening of indigenous technological
capacity and the wider participation of people in economic planning. This
supports our
concern in local government about decentralized administrative systems and
the support for voluntary organizations and participation of mass-based,
nongovernment agencies in economic planning.
My other concern is that of including airwaves and radio frequencies in the
section on natural resources. We had an agreement that in the case of
ownership
of telecommunications systems, this was going to be transferred to the
Article on General Provisions but our resolution on airwaves, coauthored with
Commissioner Bacani, would be included in the Article on National Economy
and Patrimony.
In summary, my concerns are the need to cooperate with Third World
countries in the transformation of the world system in trade and technology
transfer,
the wider participation of people in economic planning and the partnership of
government with nongovernment and voluntary associations, and the
airwaves as
part of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
Thank You, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. VILLEGAS: We have fully deliberated on the question of airwaves and
there are two conclusions: First, air space is already included in the provision
on
natural resources and that was considered to be sufficient because from all
the testimonies that we had, the technological complexities of airwaves were
such that they were open to so many disputes as to how the country could
control the airwaves.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Bernas be
recognized for his interpellation.
FR. BERNAS: Mr. Vice-President, my questions have reference to page 3, line

5 which says:
No private corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.
If we recall, this provision did not exist under the 1935 Constitution, but this
was introduced in the 1973 Constitution. In effect, it prohibits private
corporations from acquiring alienable public lands. But it has not been very
clear in jurisprudence what the reason for this is. In some of the cases
decided in 1982 and 1983, it was indicated that the purpose of this is to
prevent large landholdings. Is that the intent of this provision?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think that is the spirit of the provision.
FR. BERNAS: In existing decisions involving the Iglesia ni Cristo, there were
instances where the Iglesia ni Cristo was not allowed to acquire a mere
313-square meter land where a chapel stood because the Supreme Court
said it would be in violation of this.
FR. BERNAS: So, I wonder if something can be done here.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, along the lines of the decision.
FR. BERNAS: The other problem with this is that the prohibition applies to
lands of the public domain. So, a very important point is: When does the land
of
the public domain become land of the private domain, or cease to be land of
the public domain? It seems that there are conflicting decisions on this. One
decision says that the public land ceases to be public land only when the title
is issued. Another decision seems to indicate that public land ceases to be
public land when all the requirements for the acquisition of the public land
have been fulfilled, even prior to the physical issuance of the title. Was
there any attempt to determine this?
MR. VILLEGAS: None. That was not brought up in the Committee meetings,
but we would be open to any suggestion on how to make further refinements
on this
specific provision.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you.
MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Vice-President, may I react to that question?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.

MR. COLAYCO: The Land Registration Act provides that the President may,
from time to time, declare certain parcels of public land open for private
acquisition, if I am not mistaken.
FR. BERNAS: Such a provision would be in violation of this because a
declaration of the President would only have, at most, the level of a statutory
act.
The President, certainly, cannot contravene what our Constitution says.
MR. COLAYCO: I know, but that has been the practice until now.
FR. BERNAS: The problem has not been with that, but the problem was more
on determining whether this particular land has, in fact, already become
private
and, therefore, could be acquired by a corporation. As far as private
individuals are concerned, they can acquire alienable public lands, but
private
corporations cannot. That is why Commissioner Tingson was asking about
schools, nonprofit institutions, for instance, which are prohibited from
acquiring
alienable public land because they are corporations. So, perhaps, the
Committee might entertain an amendment that will give exemptions for
nonprofit
purposes.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, and I would like to point out also that probably President
Marcos had tremendous leeway for declaring public lands alienable, because
Section 10, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution states that lands of the public
domain are classified into agricultural, industrial or commercial,
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest, and grazing lands and
that gave him a lot of elbowroom. That is why we are suggesting that we go
back
to the 1935 definition with the exception of national parks.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I now ask that Commissioner Gascon be
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
I would like to ask some questions of the Committee with regard to some
clarifications.
Section 1 defines very clearly the goals of our economy and the preferences.
I would like to highlight line 13 which says:
. . . with priority to the welfare of the poor. In the attainment of these goals,
all economic sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to develop and a
broader-based ownership of private enterprises shall be encouraged.
Does such provision provide for a democratization of access to natural
resources? It is a known fact that if we provide openness to opportunities,
those
who have more tend to get more, but those who have less tend to
accumulate less because of the competition involved where the stronger
always gets better
off than the weaker. So in that context, do we have any assurances of some
form of a democratization of access to natural resources whereby the
weaker, let
us say, entrepreneurs, small businessmen, etc., will have greater
opportunities to avail of the provisions in this section?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think the answer to the question is yes. First of all, the
very title of one of the sections of the Article on Social Justice is
Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform, and so, definitely it is in the spirit
of the whole Constitution that we want wider access to the natural
resources. In addition, the specific mention of small-scale utilization of
natural resources and cooperative fish farming in Section 3 would definitely
be
in the spirit.
Does Commissioner Suarez, who was responsible for this omnibus provision,
have additional comments?
MR. SUAREZ: I think that is the thrust of this particular section.
MR. GASCON: Will the Committee, perhaps, entertain a proposal to include
such a term as democratization in the proper time?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, we will, definitely.
MR. GASCON: My other question is with regard to page 2, Section 3,
beginning on line 25 which says:
The President with the concurrence of Congress, by special law, shall provide
the terms and conditions under which a foreign-owned corporation may
enter
into agreements with the government . . .
Does concurrence mean simple majority of both Houses?

MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. I think that was already voted upon.
MR. GASCON: Is it a simple majority 50 percent plus 1?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GASCON: Is it possible that instead of a simple majority, we allow a twothirds vote of Congress for such conditions?
MR. VILLEGAS: Since the Committee was divided on that issue, definitely
there is a possibility of bringing that to the floor.
MR. GASCON: Could the Commissioner elaborate on the pros and cons of a
majority vote and why the Committee decided to maintain 50 percent plus
1?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think the main reason for the majority vote is that there is
greater capital scarcity today than there has ever been in our economic
history because of all of the abuses of the last 20 years, and that we should
make it relatively easier to get this type of financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources.
My next question is with regard to Section 9 on page 4 which says:
The Congress shall reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty percent of whose voting stock or controlling
interest is owned by such citizens or such higher percentage as Congress
may prescribe, certain areas of investments when the national interest so
dictates.
Is it possible for us to amend the section in the sense that instead of
providing for a provision on reserving certain areas for Filipinos as Congress
may
prescribe, we allow Congress to prescribe certain areas where foreign
investments may enter into.
We should also define very clearly that the National Assembly or Congress
may allow persons other than citizens of the Philippines, and corporations or
associations less than 60 percent of whose voting stock or controlling
interest is owned by citizens of the Philippines, certain areas of investments
when
the national interest so dictates. It would be the case that all areas of
investment are exclusively for Filipinos, and for foreign investors to be

allowed
to invest in certain areas of business and the economy, it must first be
explicitly stated by Congress that such areas are open to investment to
nonnationals. So, in a sense we are changing the emphasis. What does the
Committee think?
MR. VILLEGAS: That can be considered.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, may I just add something. While the
sentiment is clear, there may be operational problems. In other words, the
Gentleman is
saying that the economy is closed except for the following areas, in which
case the Congress now will determine each specific case, say, this area is all
right for foreign investment. That may be operationally quite difficult. And,
secondly, it would be sending the wrong messages as far as the kind of
economy we have is concerned, because our economy is not a state-dictated
economy. It is a private initiative economy.
MR. GASCON: I just like to express that Section 9, as it is written now, gives
the impression that the State is open to all foreign investments, but which
is open exclusively to Filipinos. Since we are writing a Constitution directed
primarily for the Filipinos, could we just interchange the emphasis?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, but as I said, there is a problem in that kind of an
approach because we have an entire economy to contend with.
MR. GASCON: Yes. What is the Committees definition of national
emergency which appears in Section 13, page 5? It reads:
When the common good so requires, the State may temporarily take over or
direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected
with public interest.
MR. VILLEGAS: What I mean is threat from external aggression, for example,
calamities or natural disasters.
MR. GASCON: There is a question by Commissioner de los Reyes. What about
strikes and riots?
MR. VILLEGAS: Strikes, no; those would not be covered by the term national
emergency.
MR. BENGZON: Unless they are of such proportions such that they would
paralyze government service.
MR. GASCON: How will a takeover by the State operate? Will former owners
be compensated for their losses?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, this is only temporary, so there is no need to transfer
ownership. Only the operation will be taken over, which precisely is the
reason
for such a takeover. Directed operation shall be only for the duration of the
state of emergency.
MR. GASCON: During the period of taking over by the State, will there be
compensation for the owner who will be deprived?
MR. VILLEGAS: If they are prejudiced, definitely yes. No one can be deprived
of private property without just compensation.
MR. GASCON: Section 10 says: The Congress shall establish an independent
central monetary authority. What is the definition of independent here?
Does
this mean that independence should mean free from the dictates of foreign
and local interests? And does it also imply that the monetary authority will
pursue a nationalist self-reliant cause for the common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: Independence applies to all undue control or influence.
MR. GASCON: Whether it be from local capital interest or foreign interest or
even the State or the government?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right; from the executive.
My final question is with regard to Section 15, lines 19 to 20, page 5, which
reads: . . . under the laws of the Philippines at least two-thirds of whose
voting stock or controlling interest is owned by such citizens.
This refers to public utility, is that correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GASCON: And we know for a fact that the primary concern of public
utility is the interest of the common good. Is it possible to increase ownership
from
two-thirds to three-fourths thereby assuring the interests of the common

good at the proper time?
MR. VILLEGAS: Again, if the Gentleman remembers, we were divided on this.
This can be entertained as amendments yes.
MR. BENGZON: If the Gentleman will propose it, then we will consider it.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, we have only two interpellators left, but
the time is now 12:26 p.m.
MR. BENGZON: Can we finish with the two interpellators?
MR. MAAMBONG: If it is the pleasure of the Committee.
I now call on Commissioner Jamir for his interpellation.
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Vice-President, my questions to the Committee refer to this
second paragraph of Section 3, more specifically line 26, with reference to
the
phrase special law. Does this mean that everytime a contract is entered
into with a foreign-owned corporation, Congress has to enact a law for that
specific purpose?
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Suarez will answer that yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the question because this particular provision
has precisely been the subject of full discussion.
The answer to the Gentlemans question is in the affirmative, but we have
been trying to improve the wording and the impact of this particular
provision.
There is a school which submits the proposition that it should be the
Congress that should take the initiative of formulating the terms and
conditions,
subject to the approval of the President. And so, the Committee is still
deliberating hard on this particular provision. But as it is worded now and as
the
question is addressed to this provision, the answer to the question is yes.
My other question is with regard to the phrase foreign-owned corporation

on line 27. Does this mean corporations formed or organized under the laws
of a
foreign jurisdiction?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. JAMIR: So that if a group of Filipinos or Filipino citizens form a
corporation, let us say, in the State of California, that will be considered a
foreign-owned corporation and will be the subject of a special law, in case
they want to engage in any technical or financial assistance to the
government?
MR. SUAREZ: That depends, because under the situation pictured and
envisioned by the Commissioner, this corporation is owned by Filipinos,
although it is
foreign established.
The Commissioner will notice that the words used are foreign-owned
corporation, which mean that the owners of the corporation are foreigners.
MR. JAMIR: Foreigners?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, but in the case just cited, the owners are Filipinos,
although it was organized in a foreign country.
MR. JAMIR: So, strictly speaking, the foreign-owned corporations here do not
refer exclusively to corporations organized under foreign laws. If they are
organized by noncitizens of the Philippines under foreign laws, they are fully
covered.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you very much.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Let us have the last interpellator.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Natividad be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
I refer to Section 10, page 4, which says:
The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority, the

majority of whose governing board shall come from the private sector, which
shall provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit.
If this is an independent major governmental activity, why do we want that it
should have a majority coming from the private sector? If we do this, shall
we not lose control of monetary and fiscal policies? The government may
lose control of monetary and fiscal policies because we use the word
independent
and then say majority of the members of the governing board shall come
from the private sector. Is this not a formula for losing control of monetary
and
fiscal policies of the government?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, this is a formula intended to prevent what happened in
the last regime when the fiscal authorities sided with the executive branch
and
were systematically in control of monetary policy. This can lead to disastrous
consequences. When the fiscal and the monetary authorities of a specific
economy are combined, then there can be a lot of irresponsibility. So, this
word independent refers to the executive branch.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about the fact that the majority of the governing body
of this monetary authority will be from the private sector? Will this not, in
effect, result in the loss of control of the government over monetary and
fiscal policies?
MR. VILLEGAS: No.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But a majority of the governing body comes from the private
sector.
MR. VILLEGAS: That depends on what Congress would eventually decide. This
was the subject of a full discussion with Governor Fernandez and members of
the
Central Bank, as well as people from the financial community.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, I understand that.
MR. VILLEGAS: The Congress may decide that the so-called representatives
of the private sector may actually be appointed full-time governors and may
work
for the government like the Federal Reserve System of the United States. The
important thing is that they are independent of the executive and they are
not
beholden to him.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I understand that because I was there. However, here we are
establishing a very primordial duty of the government that of a central
monetary authority, and yet we are putting it in the hands of a majority of
the private sector. I was just asking for an explanation because, to my mind,
it seems a little bit incongruous. Usually, the private sector is only
represented, but in this case, they are in the majority.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, but this is also in the spirit of always taking into account
the sectors that are affected by a certain policy, and there will always be
the Governor of the Central Bank who will be definitely protecting the
governments point of view.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But he is going to be the presiding officer, and the majority
can vote him down. I believe that the government should retain control of
government function and not abdicate it in favor of the private sector
because this is a primordial duty of government.
MR. NATIVIDAD: During the hearing, this was at the back of my mind. I am
one of the authorities on this provision. But it is a little bit different from
what we filed. I am asking this clarificatory question because I can conceive
of a situation in the future where a hostile private sector might throw a
monkey wrench on our monetary policies.
MR. MONSOD: There is a good distinction between fiscal and monetary
policies because a monetary policy is more an accommodating rather than
initiating
function. It is the fiscal policy that does that. I believe the Committee, in
putting in this provision, had in mind to reduce the direct control and
interference in the Monetary Board, for example, of the Ministry of Finance or
people who are directly involved in the executive function of government. As
it is now, there are five government ministers out of the seven members and
there would be an imbalance because the Monetary Board may be
completely
subservient to the fiscal or budgetary requirements of government. That
could distort the system. So we felt that there was a need for independence
in the
monetary function in order to balance the situation, although the monetary
function may not be completely able to balance this, if the fiscal function is
very active.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Nevertheless, I was wondering why the majority would be

the private sector as far as the monetary functions are concerned. In due
time,
perhaps I can offer an amendment if the Committee is willing. In the case of
Section 9, certain areas of investments are reserved to citizens of the
Philippines or to corporations or associations at least 60 percent of whose
voting stock is owned by such citizens. But I am raising this clarificatory
question. I read in the papers that the government has converted our foreign
debt into equity. I am referring to the foreign equity that we have.
So what happens to Section 9? If there is a conversion into equity of our
foreign debt, this will mean opening the country to foreign investors.
MR. VILLEGAS: In those areas actually specified by law.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, but would this not conflict with Section 9 of this Article?
MR. SUAREZ: I think in a situation like that the conversion of the debt equity
should correspond only to the limitations imposed by law meaning, 40
percent unless there is a higher percentage imposed by Congress and this
is allowed under this particular Section 9. So, as the situation presently
stands, I would venture the proposition that such conversion into equity
should be limited to the 40-percent participation of foreign corporations.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, may I just mention that to this date, as far
as we know, there has been only one instance when that right has been
availed
of and that is in the case of the conversion into equity in Interbank, in which
case, the maximum limitation of foreign ownership of 40 percent for a
commercial bank was applied.
MR. BENGZON: We also would like to indicate that perhaps the better term in
order to avoid any conflict or misinterpretations would be the use of the
phrase capital stock.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Capital stock?
MR. SUAREZ: We will discuss that on the committee level because precisely,
there were three criteria that were submitted. One of them is with reference
to
the authorized capital stock; the second would be with respect to the voting
rights; and the third would be with respect to the management. And so,
again,
we would like to inform the members that the Committee is still trying to
polish this particular provision.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. I am satisfied. From experience, the government has

always reserved land for national parks but it has done almost nothing to
protect
the national parks. Should not this Constitution direct the government to
protect the national parks and have more rangers? Section 5 says marking
clearly
their boundaries on the grounds, but as soon as these boundaries or
markings are placed on the grounds, the people remove them and either
plunder the
forest or use these areas for private residences. Therefore, what is more
equally important is a direct mandate of the Constitution to the legislature to
protect the parks. We have no rangers to speak about, unlike the United
States and the European countries which have enough personnel to protect
their
parks and rivers.
Law after law has been promulgated, designating areas for national parks
but nothing has been done to protect those areas reserved for parks. So, this
will
be a dead provision of the Constitution, if we do not direct the legislature to
protect these parks in terms of hiring more personnel or rangers and other
personnel necessary to protect these.
MR. BENGZON: We will accept amendments along that line.
MR. NATIVIDAD: And my last question is with regard to franchises appearing
in Section 15. What does the Committee envision? Which agency of the
government
shall issue the franchise to operate electricity from town to town? Are we
going to continue this under this Article?
MR. VILLEGAS: It is still going to be given by the legislative body.
MR. NATIVIDAD: It is the most inefficient form of issuing franchises, Mr. VicePresident, and that is why our telephone and electric systems are very
primitive because there has been very little improvement in this country. It is
more difficult to call from Manila to Malolos than to call from Manila to
Los Angeles, Washington D.C. or New York because the little tyrants who own
these franchises do not give a damn. Having come from Congress, I have
authored
a number of these franchises myself, and then I was the one who acted as
lawyer of the people to revoke or to modify these franchises because they
have
never given adequate nor satisfactory services to our people. I think that if
we continue this practice, the communication system in this country will
remain subpar. Besides, there is already a monopoly here of the Philippine

Long Distance Telephone Company.
MR. BENGZON: But that is only one of the problems.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, I know.
MR. BENGZON: We also have other problems.
MR. NATIVIDAD: That is why I would like to speak against the giving of
franchises.
MR. BENGZON: Then maybe the Gentleman can propose the amendment at
the proper time and we will favorably consider those points.
I was just expressing what I witnessed in previous times.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, before I move for a suspension, I have
been asked to announce that after lunch the representatives of the
Cordilleras
request our presence at the lobby for a sort of presentation they have
prepared for us to articulate their thanks for allowing them to attend our
sessions
and for whatever assistance they received from us. They cannot stay for
long, and will be going home shortly. I think we should also thank them for
their
presence.
I now move for a suspension of the session up to two-thirty this afternoon.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Before we suspend, the Chair wishes to announce that
at one-thirty today, two Soviet delegates are paying a courtesy call at the
office
of Madam President. They are Victor Gochakov, Deputy of the Supreme
Soviet Russian Federation, and Alexi Drokov, member of the Soviet Solidarity
Committee.
The Members who wish to be present are welcome.
MR. MAAMBONG: I reiterate my motion, Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is suspended. It was 12:44 p.m.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is resumed. The Acting Floor Leader is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, this is the continuation of the
interpellation on the Article on National Economy and Patrimony but the
Chairman of the
Committee and the other members are not yet here. So may I ask for a
suspension of a few minutes.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is suspended. It was 2:36 p.m.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, the Committee is now prepared to
respond to interpellations. I now call on Commissioner Rosario Braid to be
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Vice-President, I think I will yield to other
interpellators because I am now ready with some amendments.
Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, I ask that Commissioner de Castro be
recognized.
Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee, I have read through all the
sections proposed in this Article, but I am still looking for something which I
believe concerns most of us that of using our own materials and our own
manufactured goods. In short, I am referring to what we called the NEPA
we use
our own goods, our own materials, and our own labor.
I understand that even Marlboro, although produced here and still called
Marlboro, is paid a certain amount for royalty, as is Coca-Cola and
Pepsi-Cola. In China, they use Coca-Cola but they use another name for it
and, therefore, are free from paying royalties to the Coca-Cola company. The
same
holds true with Pepsi-Cola. I wonder if at this point we can introduce in this
Article the possibility of using our own goods, our own materials, our own
labor. In Japan, one hardly sees any goods labelled after the Western
countries. All these are named after the Japanese goods.
In short, let us be a little bit nationalistic in this matter, because I feel that
our country can produce more and can make more if we become conscious
of
using our goods. Take, for example, corn. At this period of the year, we have
plenty of corn produced. And yet, we already have certain importations
already being planned for some time in the middle of September to October.
This is true with the fish meal used in the production of our feeds for
livestock, chicken and cows. We have plenty of meat, yet we are prone to
import.
I wonder if we can introduce in this Article what we call NEPA or the use of
local goods, materials locally manufactured and the use of local labor. We
may add a section if the Committee will permit us.
Thank You.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Vice-President, may we request that Commissioner Monsod
be recognized to answer the query of Commissioner de Castro.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, I believe that the first sentence of Section 1
covers the principle that Commissioner de Castro wanted to enunciate
The
State shall develop a self-reliant and independent economy. With respect to
the enabling legislation on specific activities, including the legislation on
labeling and brand names, those are already details that perhaps should not
be covered by the Constitution. But I shall ask Commissioner Romulo to
explain
that in more detail.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Vice-President, the suggestion of the Gentleman is

meritorious but that is really a legislative matter dealing with labeling and
trademarks. There are at present labeling and trademark laws, so that it is
difficult to legislate on that matter in the Constitution. There are costs
involved in changes in labelling and trademarks. Besides, under our present
law, protection is given certain trademarks. We believe that the proper body
to
pass upon this would be the legislature.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Vice-President, I have read and reread the first sentence
of Section 1. The only thing that can be deducted out of what I said is the
word self-reliant, but I believe that the word is not sufficient in order to
register in the minds of our people, our Congressmen, in the mind of our
President, and of everybody the meaning of nationality and nationalism
in the use of our locally made goods.
So, in the matter of these rights or the payment of royalties for the use of
names, we believe that we can formulate something in general to give credit
to
what I have said before in the form of an amendment by the addition of a
section. I wonder if the Committee will welcome the suggestion.
MR. MONSOD: The Committee will be happy to entertain amendments along
those lines. We also wanted the Gentleman to note that in Section 1, on line
10,
there is a mandate for the full employment of all the resources of the
country, which means that opportunities should be afforded so that these
resources
can be properly utilized. Second, there is a mandate for a sustained increase
in the amount of goods produced by the country. Again, this is a mandate for
local production. Also mentioned is the phrase for the Filipino people which
means that the local product should first be made available to Filipinos
rather than exported, if that is for the greater good of the Filipinos.
MR. DE CASTRO: I agree with the Commissioner but that is what we call in
Tagalog daplis because the provision does not expressly provide for giving
priority to local products. We need something that the Filipino people and our
leaders will understand. We still prefer to use a pair of Florsheim shoes
and we feel proud because it is imported. A very few of us want to use the
Marikina-made shoes. While it is so stated here, it is not, in fact, being
followed by many Filipinos.
I hope that we can formulate something which will be acceptable to the
Committee, so that when we say NEPA this will register in the minds of our
leaders
and our People.
Thank You.
MR. MONSOD: We will await the Commissioners amendment.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Garcia be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I would like to make general remarks with reference to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9
and 10. First of all, may I say that I consider this Article on National
Economy and Patrimony crucial and important. In fact, I believe that the
Article on Social Justice in a sense cannot be realized unless the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony shares the same vision. And, therefore, I
am making my remarks in that context, hoping that this Article can provide
the
thrust, the environment so that the social justice direction can be realized.
At the same time, I want to make an admission. It was only yesterday
evening that we were told to tackle this Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony. I would have wished that I had sufficient time to do further study
and research on this very important Article. Since I did not have sufficient
time, I asked the Floor Leader regarding the number of interpellators. I was
told there was only just one more or two. I thought it was important that I
should at least lay some general questions. Nonetheless, I want to make an
admission that I feel there is a need for further research on this matter.
Anyway, the two major questions that I have in mind are these. As to the
entire Article, I asked myself how we can work towards more economic
democratization, so that the Article on National Economy and Patrimony can
truly safeguard the provisions that we have worked out very carefully and
systematically in the Article on Social Justice.
I find that there are certain areas here where this entire question can be
posed. Do they really lead towards the furthering and deepening of economic
democratization? For example, if we look at Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10, we
will notice that there is a strong stress on the move towards private
initiative, the private sector, the private groups. I am wondering whether the
preference, as pointed out by the Chairman of the Committee, for the private
group or the private sector has contrast with the previous experience of the
public; whether it could also admit of a differentiation between private and
social. In other words, the distinction should not be only between private and
public but also between private and social. Initiative should not just be
left to certain individuals or to those who within the free enterprises could be
the strong monopoly group, but there must be a greater regard for the
social groups or the social sectors in society which normally are excluded
from the economic distribution system. In fact, there is a certain definition
given in Section 1, but I am wondering whether in the last sentence, when
one speaks of a broader-based ownership of private enterprise, that would
include
a mixed economy with the private enterprise and a social sector composed
of cooperative ventures and aggrupation of large communities like, for
example,
the peasant groups and the labor groups that we spelled out in the Article on
Social Justice and finally the state sector. A proper combination of these
three sectors and a recognition of the interplay of their working together
could bring forth a more just and economic democratization process.
However, I
feel there is a strong preference given to the private sector in this entire
Article.
The other question is: How does one ensure a greater protection of the
national interest? The first sentence reads: The State shall develop a selfreliant
and independent national economy, and yet one has still to find provisions
for greater protection. How do we intend to realize this? Is there a rational,
comprehensive direction or vision of how one creates a self-reliant
independent economy? Is there a priority? Are there economic and national
priorities
that will safeguard independent development? I seem to miss these in the
Article. Such perhaps provides a lot of opening, a lot of flexibility. We have to
consider this in the Third World context where there is unequal and uneven
relationship between strong nations and weak nations, also especially
considering our phase of development when there is a need to put a lot of
stress on social justice. This economic prioritizing, I think, is very important
to ensure precisely that we can develop, independent of other factors and
forces that are sometimes ranged against our national interest.
I would like to look deeper into this and with more detail, and perhaps
suggest in what manner those sections that I mentioned can be
strengthened. May I
refer you to Sections 9 and 10, particularly lines 13 and 14 of Section 9. With
regard to reserving certain areas of investment to citizens of the
Philippines, I was wondering whether we can specify and say in a determined
manner, so as to reserve traditional priority areas to Filipino interest. I
think that could perhaps be clarified and, in fact, strengthened, so that we
can defend Filipino interest in priority areas.
With regard to Section 10, following the interpellations by Commissioner

Natividad on the monetary authority, I think I also mentioned this in relation
to
some other sections regarding the monetary authority and the private
sectors majority participation. It is important to note that the word private
must
likewise connote the idea of social. Very clearly, the expertise and the
technical knowhow that we need to participate in the monetary authority
could be
found very strongly in those who have the expertise and the experience
within the banking circles. And these are the private banking people, I would
presume. So, how do we protect the social sectors who are most affected, in
fact, by the entire procedure and workings in this banking relationship?
Perhaps, something like sectoral representation can also be insured in this
area. Sometimes we are over-reacting to the use of public sector or public
efforts because of the martial law experience where the public sector was
not used for the public good but only for private crony interest. Therefore,
some
kind of re-orientation has to be made so that the Article has the social
dimension rather than simply the kind of negation of our experience during
martial
law.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you very much.
Let me just give some preliminary response to the remarks of Commissioner
Garcia, and then the other members of the Committee could give their own.
First
of all, we would like to assure Commissioner Garcia that we welcome
suggestions on how to refine the phraseology, so that the preferential
treatment for
the poor which we would like to permeate the whole Article will stand out
more clearly. This is definitely a welcome source of amendments at the
opportune
time.
But, first, let me say that we should take the whole Constitution as an
organic whole and keep in mind that social justice, which used to be just one
provision in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, has now been
expanded into one whole article. We would like to think of the Article on
Social
Justice as still very much an organic part of the Article on National Economy
and Patrimony. We should not look at the various articles piecemeal, but
should interrelate them especially these two articles I have referred to.
Then I would like to reiterate what I said this morning, that we want it very
clear on record that the word private is not limited to profit-making for
business groups. Precisely, we have taken into account the importance of
relating private to social or common good causes by making sure that the
word
private here is interpreted to include cause-oriented groups, cooperatives,
nongovernmental organizations, precisely any grouping that is not part of the
government sector. So, there is really no disagreement on this emphasis on
the social reorientation for the private group, and that is exactly why Section
2 opens with the statement that the use of property bears a social
function, and that all economic agents, whether they belong to the profitmaking
sector or the nonprofit-making sector, should contribute to the common
good. If that can be improved, definitely we would welcome some
suggestions.
Then that leads to the statement that the so-called private representation in
the Monetary Board can very well include nonprofit organizations, whether
they represent the labor sector or the farming sector, and that we will leave
it to Congress to decide who the so-called private representatives in the
Monetary Board should be. We are not thinking only in terms of bankers or
members of the profit-making sector when we say that the majority of the
members
of the Monetary Board come from the private sector. I am very glad
Commissioner Garcia gives us an opportunity to reiterate this. We can have
members of
the Monetary Board representing the labor sector, the farming sector, or
other sectors that Congress may decide. That is why we are leaving it open
to
Congress to decide on this representation.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I am a member of the Committee, and for the benefit of Commissioner
Garcia, I did remember that I suggested the term mixed economy to
describe the range
of economic subsystems within the overall economy of Philippine society to
include those that were already mentioned, including private communal
state-owned. But it was the feeling of the other members of the Committee
that the concept is embodied in the whole Article in relation to cooperatives,

to
ancestral land, to the participation of the private sector and also the role of
the State. But if it does not seem to give that strong impression, maybe
some amendments later will be entertained to fully project that idea of a
combination of various economic subsystems within the overall national
economy.
MR. VILLEGAS: Also, it is explicitly stated that the freedom of initiative is
limited by the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to
intervene when the common good so demands. I think it is very clear that we
are not anti-State in situations where it is very clear that the State has to
intervene. Definitely that demand for the civil justice will prevail over
freedom of initiative.
MR. GARCIA: Precisely this is my point. It is not simply a dichotomy between
the private and the public, between the individual and the State. But what I
seek here is the recognition of the social sector, a social area where the
economic agents are not simply private enterprises but also cooperative
sectors
where you may have an association of farmers or a cooperative of workers
who may become the agents of development, the engines of development.
In this way
development is far more distributed towards the recognition and
appreciation not only of the role of the private or the role of the State but at
the same
time the role of the social area which creates more involvement. So it should
not simply be a question of nationalization but of socialization.
How do we create a greater social base for ownership? How do we create a
greater social base of control and enjoyment of fruits of labor? It should not
simply be attention between one pole which is the government and the other
pole which is the individual agent for economic development, but also that of
the social bond. We speak of solidarity, and I think this could be the example.
The statement of principle in Section 1 defines it and yet, it falls short.
It does not go into a precise recognition of the sector.
Secondly, we are bound by our own history of understanding the private
sector as always limited to what we have historically seen. In the case of
private
initiative, very often because of the nature of competition, those who have
great resources and great capacity end up controlling. That is the very nature
of things, so that we have to define the weak, defend those who are normally
marginalized by providing recognition and protection to that social area. This

is what I am trying to stress.
MR. BENGZON: That is precisely one of the principal reasons why this
Commission opted to create a separate Article on Social Justice to
emphasize not
only the need for social justice but the social aspect of the use of property
and the development of national economy. Sections 19 and 20 of the Article
on
Social Justice cap the whole thing by recognizing peoples organization. It is
precisely these people in their participation with nation building that all
of these things we are talking about can be brought up. The Article on
National Economy and Patrimony zeroes in principally on the means and
manner of
generating revenues and on how development is going to be achieved in
order that the necessary support can be generated so that the provisions of
the
Article on Social Justice can be implemented
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, may I just add my own comments.
MR. MONSOD: The whole economy is concerned principally with two things:
efficiency and equity, that is, creation of wealth and distribution of wealth. In
both the Articles on National Economy and Social Justice, we are trying to
strike a balance the demands for equity and distribution are primarily in
the
Article on Social Justice and the requirements for efficiency and productivity
and wealth creation are in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
Even then, we will notice that the Article on National Economy and Patrimony
is permeated with the social aspect. So, if we look at both articles, there is
a very strong emphasis on the social aspect of production, distribution and
the activities within the economy.
MR. GARCIA: Excuse me. I am not simply speaking of the social aspect. I am
speaking here of a very vital sector as an engine of economic development. I
think this Article is very important because it provides the direction, the
economic priorities and the economic structures that can be in place.
MR. MONSOD: Is the Gentleman talking about the lower income groups, the
disadvantaged?
MR. GARCIA: When we speak, for example, of engines of development, very
often we speak of the private enterprise or the private groups or the private
sector. And very often, we would say that in times of emergency or on other
occasions, the State or the public sector can come in. What I am trying to
say
is that there is a third and very important sector which we have to enlarge if
we are going to make economic democratization a reality, and that is the
social sector the social sector being the association of a great majority in
this country. Basically, these are the associations of workers, peasants,
low-income earners who can come together and perhaps be themselves the
creators of wealth. This is also a very important area. There can be property
with
the social sector in command, in control rather than either the State or the
individual entrepreneur.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, may I just ask a question?
Can we put this in operational terms?
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Let us talk about a steel company. Let us say that in case of
invasion or in case of war, the steel company is now managed by a group
listed in
the stock market and which has a broad-based ownership. In times of war,
the State says that this is an emergency and we would like to take over this
industry because production, not profit, is important. Now, where does the
third sector come in?
MR. GARCIA: Since that is a very vital industry with such strategic nature and
character, then it should be in the hands of the State. In fact, I am very
doubtful whether a steel industry could be given to one family, like the
Jacinto family, rather than be in the hands of the State.
Let us take a newspaper, for example. Should a newspaper be in the hands
of one family or the State? I would say neither.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, let us take the example we had earlier
because it is a company that should be in the hands of the State. In his
previous
statement, the Gentleman was referring to a third sector other than the
State . . .
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: . . . or private enterprise even if it is broad-based in the stock
market. In the specific situation we were talking about, how does the third
sector enter into the picture as a preferred mode in order to make sure that
that company is run for the common good?
MR. GARCIA: The third sector, the social sector as a preferred mode, could
only be envisioned within a certain set of circumstances. In other words, it is
not for every enterprise. There are some strategic and vital industries that
cannot be under its control or under its leadership. But there are areas, for
example, the shoe-making industry in Marikina or a newspaper publishing
industry. Perhaps, rather than it be under the control of an individual
entrepreneur who will own it or a family or the State, why not a social sector
like a cooperative of newspapermen or of writers and other people who work
in that newspaper or the shoemakers themselves, banding together, be
made the cooperative owner to provide room for this sector as another
engine for
economic development in this area?
MR. MONSOD: Perhaps, if we expand the second sentence of Section 2 in
order to accommodate the cooperatives, maybe we can say individuals and
private
groups, SUCH AS, OR INCLUDING COOPERATIVES, and so on. Is this what the
Commissioner means because the Committee, in its deliberations, took into
consideration the different forms or the different types of organizations
within private groups? The Chairman mentioned that private groups or
individuals need not be profit-making. These private groups or individuals
need not be a corporation nor a big business. If the Commissioner wants
some
explicit mention of certain types of organizations in order to highlight the
social sectors he is talking about, the Committee would be happy to
entertain
suggestions in that regard, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. GARCIA: Actually, I am not sure whether this is simply a language
problem or a matter of phrasing. I feel there should be some effort to include
in the
vision of this Article a recognition of the social sector as a partner and one of
the priority areas in our national development. Really, I am not sure.
Does the Commissioner think this is only a language problem? Can we
accommodate this sector by a change in phraseology of the section or
should this be
part of the vision of this Article?
MR. MONSOD: If we can address the questions squarely, when the
Committee formulated this Article there was a very distinct preference for
private
initiative. If the Commissioner is saying that the section should have a
different orientation, that it should talk about socialism or socialization of
factors of production or assets, then that is a different thing altogether. I
think the concept of the Committee was that private groups should include
collective organizations and cooperatives. But in fairness to the
Commissioner in case there is a difference in interpretation, the Committee

does not
subscribe to the system where the assets for production are in the hands of
the State in the name of the people. Perhaps, we can argue more on that
point
rather than on the wordings of the section.
MR. GARCIA: I am sorry, but I think there is a misunderstanding here. The
reason I precisely tried to introduce the idea of the social sector is to get
away from that dichotomy between the individual entrepreneur and the
State. There is a third area where, in fact, the whole theme of solidarity
moves into,
which is the social area or the social sector. Therefore, there must be a
proper recognition of that mixed economy which I tried to spell out earlier.
Besides relying on the important role of private enterprise, still there must be
a recognition and an encouragement of the social sector while respecting
the preferred action of the State where it is necessary in vital areas. In other
words, this is a mixed area.
MR. MONSOD: May I ask the Commissioner a question: In his concept, who
would own enterprises that produce goods and services?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: I think the Chair will want to recognize Commissioner
Bacani because the time of the Gentleman has already elapsed.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. I think Commissioner Garcia
is creating a dichotomy between private and social which we do not want
to
do. What we mean is that private includes social and socialized sectors in
contradistinction to the public or governmental sector. I believe that if the
Commissioner recognizes this, his difficulties will at least be lessened and he
will realize that social and socialized sectors are indeed included in the
private groups that are explicitly mentioned in this committee report.
Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I am a member of the Committee and, of course, I am in support
of the committee report, but I thought it might be useful to put some
questions to
the Committee for purposes of determining its intent and of the Commission
later with respect to some of the major provisions.
Section 1, lines 7 and 8, states: The State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy. I do not know whether in constitutional
literature these terms self-reliant and independent correspond to certain
well-established meanings. The Committee cannot be referring in any case to
self-reliance and independence in the context of economic autarky.
MR. VILLEGAS: No. As I said in my sponsorship speech this morning, that is
not what the Committee means.
MR. OPLE: Perhaps, the most conspicuous change in economic history in
modern times is the great interdependence according to which national
economies are
now linked together to a vital and often fickle global economy. Is that not
correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And the most strikingly successful economy is in our own part of
the world where those who early on recognize this major discontinuity as,
some
economists call it, the arrival of an era of global interdependence say that
what happens in one part of the world, let us say, when the OPEC meets in
Vienna, can actually exert a direct impact within 24 hours on the
pocketbooks of workers in the Philippines. Would that be correct?
So there is no intention here to speak of an economy in isolation in the name
of self-reliance and independence.
MR. VILLEGAS: No, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: I bring this up because certain contrasts in fundamental
perspectives might be involved. Earlier in a committee meeting, I put this
question to a
distinguished economist, who is the Chairman of the Committee on National
Economy and Patrimony, on why 20 years ago we had a higher per capita
income than
Korea, Taiwan and Japan. Our engineers built the runway in Seoul; we were
considered an emerging economic Cinderella of Asia and the Pacific, and the
potentials of an import-substituting economy got exhausted because we
turned inward and, in effect, nourished some companies that enfranchised
themselves
in a small domestic market with low volumes and high mark-ups so that, in
effect, the consumers were penalized ultimately in terms of having to buy
shoddy
goods at exorbitant prices. And, in the meantime, some of these countries to
our north Japan, Korea and Taiwan turned outward and competed for
their
fair share of emerging global markets, with the result that today, Korea and
Taiwan earn more than $30 billion from their export strategy compared to $5
billion of the Philippines, even if we put all of our exports together, including
copper, coconut oil, sugar, handicrafts and all goods. Korea owes the
banks about $40 billion while the Philippines $26 billion, but the banks still
queue at the door of the Korean companies; whereas, we are a basket case
in
the international economy. Is that not correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. OPLE: So I wanted to make sure that there is no hermit-like retreat into
our own economy and no act of shutting our eyes to opportunities in the
global
economy with this term self-reliant and independent economy.
Earlier, Commissioner Monsod, in replying to Commissioner Garcia, said that
productivity is the major concern of this Article, as distinguished from the
redistributive justice in the Article on Social Justice. I look in vain for any
reference to productivity as a national policy in this Article.
Productivity is not mentioned a single time throughout this Article. Will the
Committee, therefore, at the proper time consider a section on productivity
as a national policy which, of course, will also be established in the context of
shared rewards for all those engaged in the effort of production? I would
also remind the Chairman of the Committee that in the course of the debate
on the Article on Social Justice I explicitly asked whether or not this
Committee would consider absorbing the overflow from one of the sections
in the Article on Social Justice about the State owing protection to our own
citizens in terms of the marine wealth of our territorial waters which should
be reserved exclusively to the exploitation by Filipino citizens, especially
the small fishermen.
MR. VILLEGAS: We would welcome an amendment to that effect, Mr. VicePresident.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Quesada be
recognized.

MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President, I would like to preface my interpellation
with a request that we still be allowed to present some questions or
interpellations tomorrow, because I agree with Commissioner Garcia and
some other Commissioners who felt that we should be given more time to
review some
of the concepts that have been enunciated in this particular Article since this
unscheduled discussion on this particular Article was only received
yesterday. So we would like to request a reservation to interpellate tomorrow
morning. Would the Committee still entertain interpellations even if
amendments may already be presented?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, we can still continue the interpellations tomorrow.
MR. BENGZON: The Commissioner can certainly ask questions even if we are
already in the period of amendments, especially if the matter brought out is
something that is vital to an amendment.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you very much.
For many of us who are not economists, we still have to grapple with a lot of
technocratic terms. As the Committee members have accused some of us, so
we
do the same for the economists who have formulated some of these
provisions which to noneconomists would mean certain things. We would like
to be clarified
on such provisions so that we, in turn, can explain these to the laymen who
have to understand what these all mean and how these relate to the Article
on
Social Justice. We hope the committee members will not mind our being
persistent in clarifying some of the terms that may already have been
repeatedly
expressed by them, one of which is the concept of common good.
The first time we heard the term common good was when we were
formulating the Preamble. We would like to find out if the meaning of
common good in the
Preamble of the Constitution would be the same as that used in this Article
on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. In fact, the phrase common good is even more
applicable when we talk about marginalized sectors, people who have
been deprived
systematically over the years. If we will remember, I insisted on the use of
the phrase common good as a substitute for the more ambiguous phrase
general welfare because in the past, general welfare had been used by
the majority to inflict certain injustices on the minority. General welfare
means the greatest good for the greatest number. So, often, people who
belong to the marginalized sector are systematically left out.
As I said earlier, the term common good is a phrase in social philosophy
which is defined as a social order which enables every single individual and
society to attain fullest development economically, politically, culturally and
spiritually. So when we talk about economic privation, common good is
more appropriate. We have seen in the Article on Social Justice that we have
to provide for the marginalized sectors.
MS. QUESADA: I notice that at one point, the Commissioner substituted
common good for the word public interest. Is this the general term of
reference
then?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MS. QUESADA: Is this a theological concept?
MR. VILLEGAS: It is a philosophical concept.
MS. QUESADA: I understand this has been based on the policy of the Vatican
II.
MR. VILLEGAS: Even before the Vatican II.
MS. QUESADA: Even before Vatican II?
MS. QUESADA: In this particular Article, what would be the parameter of
having arrived at the term common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: In every decision we make in the economic sphere, we must
consider the welfare of everyone. We cannot be very summary in dismissing
the
interest of special groups just to promote the good of the majority, although
in the field of economics, as in politics, the public interest sometimes may
require a decision in favor of the majority. This is the reason public interest,
in certain situations, can actually mean the common good.
MS. QUESADA: Let us take the case of the people of Cordillera. Would the
Commissioner say that the common good of these people was served when
the Chico
Dam was constructed?
MR. VILLEGAS: In that particular case, not necessarily. Precisely, we have
provisions in the Article on Social Justice to make sure that the rights of
indigenous tribes are more seriously considered in public works projects.
MS. QUESADA: Also, in the case of the construction of the Pantabangan Dam
when a lot of inhabitants of Nueva Ecija were actually displaced and
dislocated,
would the Commissioner say that the common good was served?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely not, if there is evidence that the welfare of these
indigenous tribes has been completely neglected without any fair treatment.
MS. QUESADA: So, as a nation, how would we relate to this concept of
common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: By precisely always considering the welfare of everyone in a
decision. It does not mean that we cannot make decisions for the good of the
majority but we must not be completely oblivious to the good of the minority.
We must provide some ways and means of resettling individuals who may be
displaced because of the power of eminent domain. As we very well know,
there is the power of eminent domain, but we cannot just say that we could
not care
less what happens to those who are dislocated because that would be
against the common good.
MS. QUESADA: So the Committee would not be using the parameters of
economic growth?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely not because economic growth is not the only
objective of the Article on the National Economy, as very clearly stated in
Section 1.
MS. QUESADA: When we say development, we ask the question of for
whose development.
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly.
MS. QUESADA: I suggest we again use simple terms because I am thinking of
how I could explain this to the laymen like farmers, workers, and the urban
poor,
so that they would realize that, indeed, this Article on National Economy and
Patrimony does not conflict with the other Articles that we have been
working
out very conscientiously. In simple terms, would the Commissioner then say
that the component of this common good can be expressed in parameters,
like the
equitable distribution of income, etc.?
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, it is the first goal.
MS. QUESADA: Would the parameter that there is conservation of this
income, that we keep this income so that it does not get away from us, that
it remains
in our country, also apply in this particular concept of common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: The phrase which says goods and services produced by the
nation for the benefit of the Filipino people is supposed to capture the
concept,
Mr. Vice-President.
MS. QUESADA: Would the third parameter that there is full employment of
income to create our wealth and produce capital goods be covered in this
particular
definition?
MR. VILLEGAS: Actually, that is one of the answers to Commissioner Oples
query about self-reliance. To the extent that we have resources and we have
domestic savings, we should not rely on outside help. We should only rely on
outside help once we have exhausted all our possible resources.
MS. QUESADA: So the Commissioner has expressed in a way the philosophy
of Sections 1 and 2 of this particular Article, which does not appear in either
the
1935 or 1973 Constitution.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right, Mr. Vice-President.
MS. QUESADA: The next question I would like to ask is: What was the
rationale behind the transposition of the different sections? I notice that in
the
Article on National Economy and Patrimony, the section, for example, that
refers to NEDA which is denominated as Section 1 in the 1973 Constitution is
now
Section 8; Section 2 is now Section 14.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, that is right. We thought that the order followed in the
committee report is more logical. We found the 1973 Constitution with NEDA
introducing the whole Article very inappropriate because we do not even
know what the goals of the economy are. Introducing immediately an
economic
planning agency is not even an indispensable part of managing the economy.
MS. QUESADA: So in Section 2, page 1, line 19, which states all economic
agents in the private sector, it appears that we are giving a lot of leeway for
the private sector to take the lead in the development sphere. There are
some concerns about the private sector being covered in the Article to
include not
only the local private sector but also the foreign private sector. Is that right?
MR. VILLEGAS: There is no intention to do that in this specific provision. In
fact, the intention here is to include cooperatives, cause-oriented groups
and non-profit-making organizations as part of private sector, but there was
never any intention to explicitly include the foreign sector. But definitely
to the extent that there is, for example, the 40-60 provision on exploration of
natural resources, the foreign groups can be included.
MS. QUESADA: So it does not exclude big foreign businesses.
MR. VILLEGAS: It does not.
MS. QUESADA: The 1973 Constitution used the words service contracts. In
this particular Section 3, is there a safeguard against the possible control of
foreign interests if the Filipinos go into coproduction with them?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. In fact, the deletion of the phrase service contracts was
our first attempt to avoid some of the abuses in the past regime in the use
of service contracts to go around the 60-40 arrangement. The safeguard that
has been introduced and this, of course, can be refined is found in
Section
3, lines 25 to 30, where Congress will have to concur with the President on
any agreement entered into between a foreign-owned corporation and the
government involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you. Does the Commissioner not think that Section 9
on page 4 somehow runs in direct contradiction with Section 1 which
provides for the
development of a self-reliant and independent national economy?
MR. VILLEGAS: May I know in what sense?
MS. QUESADA: Section 9 appears to open the economy to the unhampered
participation by foreign investment in almost all areas of economic activity
while
empowering the legislature to establish certain areas of investment as
reserved to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations 60

percent of whose voting stock or controlling interest is owned by Filipinos.
MR. VILLEGAS: It can be stipulated at a higher rate by Congress.
MS. QUESADA: It could be higher?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MS. QUESADA: I also notice that the traditional areas of investment are
mentioned in the 1973 Constitution. What was the rationale behind the
removal of
the term traditional?
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee precisely believes that in order to protect the
welfare of the people, the word traditional should be deleted because it is
very ambiguous. What is traditional today may no longer be traditional
tomorrow. So we give Congress greater leeway to declare as exclusively for
Filipinos
any area of investment.
MS. QUESADA: Does the Commissioner not think that it will make it more
difficult for the national entrepreneurs because then they will be subjected to
the
vagaries of lobbying? There is always the problem of lobbying when one does
not have the means by which he could lobby. And the bigger or the richer
one
is, the more chances of getting his interest entered into a legislation or
something like that. Does that not make it difficult for our own businessmen?
Instead of this Constitution giving justice to Filipino businessmen, we are
making it harder for them because we will have to enter again into the field
of
legislative or parliamentary ways of helping them in their interests.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Romulo would like to answer that question.
MR. ROMULO: I think there is a misapprehension here as to the provision of
Section 9. This section does not seek to change what the Constitution and
the
law already provide as far as national equity is concerned. What has been
stipulated by the Constitution as 60-40 will remain 60-40 or 75-25 will remain
75-25. Indeed, what this Article wants is to allow Congress to make those
ratios even higher. That is the whole point of this section in the 1973
Constitution as well as in this new Constitution.
MS. QUESADA: But I am concerned about the traditional areas of investment.

Does this mean now that if we are silent about the limitations of the areas of
investment foreign investors can get into, that means foreign business can
compete with the local business?
MR. VILLEGAS: No. I think there is a misunderstanding here, Mr. VicePresident. The meaning of this section is that all areas that were considered
traditional in the 1973 Constitution are included in this section, plus more.
MS. QUESADA: At this point, this is all I can understand; but tomorrow we will
study this Article again, and see how we could fully understand it.
I thank the sponsors.
At this juncture, the Vice-President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable
Cirilo A. Rigos.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Tan be
recognized for her interpellation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: I am also a layman, so I would like to ask the Committees patience
about my questions, the first one of which is on Section 8.
This section sounds very nice because it assures that the production sectors
will be consulted in relation to the framing and implementation of national
development programs; however, the absence again of definite guidelines or
principles to this integrated approach may reduce this exercise, as in a
couple
of our public hearings, to parochial problems which will give rise to a system
of lobbying. But this section would be clearer to us, the laymen, if it
enunciates the principles enumerated by Lichauco which are decolonization
industrialization and economic democratization. So are these completely off?
MR. VILLEGAS: No. Commissioner Ople would like to answer the question.
MR. OPLE: I want to answer that smaller part about the mandatory
consultations in Section 8 which states:
The President, after consultations with the appropriate public agencies and
the private sector, including labor and peasant organizations, shall
recommend
to Congress and implement an integrated and coordinated approach to
national development.
I do remember that in one of the committee meetings, I proposed the
inclusion of labor and peasant organizations under the private sector to
make sure that
the private sector here refers not only to men in business and industry but
also to representatives of labor and peasant organizations. I think this is a
very important innovation in implementing integrated and coordinated
development programs. The President is obliged to consult not only with
government
agencies but also with the private sector, which in this new context includes
labor and peasant organizations. In this respect, we build even into the NEDA
planning process consultations with sectoral organizations.
With respect to the bigger isms mentioned by Commissioner Tan, I would
like to refer these to the economic philosopher who is the Chairman of the
Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. Although anyone is entitled to his own views on how to
run the economy, whether to decolonize, industrialize or do something about
it, I
think it is more subject to the discussion that should lead to legislation
because there are many issues involved, like the extent of foreign control
and
of the industries we would like to develop. Should we put up 11 major
projects as against small and medium-scale industries? Should we accent
agriculture?
Those are all very debatable issues that are better left to Congress to
legislate. The Committee was of the opinion that going into those policy
issues
would clutter the Constitution.
SR. TAN: But if it is important, it would not clutter.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, it is an important empirical question which is very
difficult for us to settle right now because of our limited time and resources.
SR. TAN: My only feeling is that we have been following this during the past
years and now we have more paupers than we have ever had before. What is
written here is really good, but if we do not put something definite like what
we did in the Article on Social Justice which took us so many days, we will
have the same banana. But I appreciate all the efforts of the Committee.
Also in Section 9, I feel the same apprehension as a layman that what is

not said is more apprehensive than what is said.
MR. VILLEGAS: We would welcome any suggestion to rephrase it so that it
can be less apprehensive.
SR. TAN: Yes, we will consult.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: I speak only for myself, but I think Commissioner Tan might be
right. She misses in this Article on National Economy and Patrimony a policy
statement on industrialization. And I think if that is lacking maybe we should
provide for that later.
Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: I remember Commissioner Oples own concern about marine
resources. Probably, he could also incorporate a phrase about
industrialization.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Foz be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: First of all, I would like to also support the proposal to include some
provisions regarding industrialization, if only to stress the importance
of industrialization in national development. Also, I am concerned about
Section 8, the same provision over which some questions were previously
asked.
There seems to be some vagueness which I suppose the Committee believed
should be amplified with the passage of a legislation regarding the National
Economic and Development Authority. I think the provision of the 1973
Constitution regarding the National Economic and Development Authority
was better in
one sense in that it places that body in Section 1 to give importance to the
role of a central planning body for national development. Now I notice that in
the draft Article on National Economy and Patrimony, the role of the NEDA is
somewhat downgraded. Is there a reason for this?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think Commissioner Monsod can address that issue.
MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, this morning, I think the same question
was asked, and the sense of the Committee was that central planning may
be
necessary at this time, but it may not be necessary later on. Since we are
framing a Constitution that is going to be valid for a long time, the
Committee
felt that the reference to planning as the central theme of the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony may not be appropriate. It may be needed
now but
it may not be needed later, particularly in the context of our directions that
there should be less government, that there should be more reliance on
private initiative, including not only individuals and business enterprises, but
also nongovernmental, cooperatively collectivist organizations and the
like. That is the reason the provision on NEDA was not put in Section 1 but in
later sections, Mr. Presiding Officer. So it is not the intention of the
Committee to downgrade planning, especially at this time when it may be
needed.
MR. FOZ: But just the same, even if the economy has progressed, and in
whatever stage the national economy finds itself in, there has to be some
kind of
central planning by the State or the government.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, there are many kinds of planning, like
total planning and indicative planning. In fact, the Committee considered the
possibility that later on, as the economy is more developed, what we may
only need is a council of economic advisers which may not include a
centralized
planning function.
So we are leaving the Constitution more flexible so it can attune itself to the
needs of circumstances.
MR. FOZ: Is that the reason the draft Article provides that the President, after
consultations with the appropriate public agencies and the private sector,
shall recommend to Congress and implement an integrated and coordinated
approach to national government? Will the burden of drawing up and
carrying out the
approach, the social and economic plans for the nation, now fall on the
shoulder of the President?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the planning agency is under the Office
of the President, and the introduction and recommendation of the economic
program is primarily an executive function. This is merely a recognition of the
executive function.
We also came to other situations in the Article where it would be a matter of,
say, forest and aquatic resources, and we asked ourselves: Why is it that
in these other sections the Ministry of Natural Resources is not mentioned?
Why is it that in the section on taxes and tariff, the Ministry of Finance is
not mentioned? So we arrived at the conclusion that these are all executive
functions and, therefore, to put things in the proper perspective, the
Ministers are really subsumed in the term President who are his alter egos.
MR. FOZ: In the Committees view, what exactly should be the relationship
between the National Economic and Development Authority and the Office of
the
President? Will the President be the chairman in the conception of the
Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Right now, the President is the Chairman of the National
Economic and Development Authority.
MR. FOZ: I still have some other questions to ask of the Chairman of the
Committee, but I am just not ready at the moment. If I will be given a chance
to
pose them tomorrow I would like to make that reservation.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: I am a member of the Committee, but I would like to make
a few comments and clarifications.
I share the concern of many of our colleagues that the Article on Social
Justice and even the Bill of Rights, without economic justice, economic
Filipinization, economic democratization and even industrialization and
protectionism, will be useless provisions in our Constitution.
Somebody said, and I quote:
The security and defense of the State, as well as social justice, are illusory
objectives as long as the economy is without a strong industrial base. Even
a Bill of Rights is meaningless to a people in hunger. Mans survival depends
on his opportunity to work. A free industrial society cannot possibly

generate opportunities for work in any meaningful scale.
I have been reading this Article on National Economy and Patrimony and I
notice that we give undue emphasis on the role of the private sector. For
instance, the word private has been mentioned two times in Section 2,
lines 18 and 19. In Sections 8 and 10, the private sector was again
mentioned.
Mr. Presiding Officer, I have my fear in giving emphasis on the private sector.
Allow me to briefly explain the reason for this. My understanding of
private sector, of course, is subject to clarification. Private sector, to me,
has reference to private capital. My fear concerning undue emphasis on
private sector is that todays Filipino capitalists, by and large, do not believe
in industrialization much less in full industrialization. One only has to
review the policy and public statements of the nations giving figures of
capital and their acknowledged ideologies to be convinced of this point. One
reason for this is that the capitalist class is composed and dominated largely
by merchants, bankers, miners and plantation owners whose interests stand
either to be inconvenienced or prejudiced by an industrialization program.
Even Pope Paul VI expressed his concern in giving role to private capital. In
his Populorum Progreso, he said private capital carries no corresponding
social obligation.
The other reason for my fear in giving undue emphasis on the role of the
private sector is that we are giving the State a decreased role in the
economy. We
are not transforming the State into an activist in the economy. We must all
remember that State activism in the economy is the general, if not the
universal, practice in all Asian countries, which include Japan, Taiwan, Korea,
Singapore, India and China.
Animated by different ideologies, these six non-Christian nations in Asia have
been moved by different development strategies which, however, share one
common element and that is the direct and active role of the State in the
economy, particularly as an industrial pioneer and entrepreneur. So these are
my
fears, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Even the late Claro M. Recto expressed these fears in a speech entitled A
Realistic Economic Policy for the Philippines, which he delivered on
September
26, 1956, and I quote:
. . . government initiative and intervention should be given encouragement;

should have a place in the Constitution . . . only a bold leadership and
decisive action by the government can produce the breakthrough that will
set us moving away from present poverty and nationwide unemployment.
Will the Committee accept an amendment at the proper time that instead of
using majority we use MINORITY so as to give the State more participation
in
the development of our country?
MR. VILLEGAS: Let me address some of the questions that the Commissioner
posed and ask the other members of the Committee to also comment. First
of all, I
would like to reiterate what we said earlier that the word private includes
cooperatives, labor organizations, private monetary organizations and all
types of social groupings that are not part of the government. And relevant
to the Commissioners suggestion about the Monetary Board, it is up to
Congress
to decide whether some of these members who represent the private sector
could come from the labor or farmer sector. So the difficulty of the
Commissioners
who have been apprehensive about the word private comes from the
semantic connotation. For example, we would have no hesitation to say
individuals and
social groups or sectoral groups instead of private groups. We use
private groups just to highlight the fact that we do not mean profit-making
or
capitalistic enterprises. We mean all the possible ranges, the whole spectrum
of social groupings, as Commissioner Garcia was saying, that can work for
the
common good which do not have to be capitalistic enterprises. I think it was
the sense of the Committee that the Monetary Board should not be
predominantly
in the hands of the executive because of the dangers of the fiscal and
monetary authorities being, to put it very bluntly, in incestuous relationship,
which actually happened during the Marcos regime. The fiscal managers
could do anything they wanted to the money supply because they were
completely
monopolizing the decision-making of the Monetary Board. So we are very
open to suggesting to Congress and we can put it on record that the
Monetary
Board be composed of predominantly the private sector to include
representatives from labor and farmer sectors and so on and so forth. But it
is still the
common thinking of the Committee that we cannot go back to the old
practice where the Presidents men or women are completely in control of
the Monetary
Board, which is very unhealthy.
I believe some of my colleagues in the Committee have some other remarks.
MR. MONSOD: I think some of the objectives of industrialization mentioned
by the Commissioner are really quite valid objectives. I just want to ask the
Commissioner whether or not the government is the proper vehicle for this.
And, perhaps, if the Commissioner can show the record of the government
with
respect to the management of business enterprises and even to functions
that are inherent in government, the government is unable to deliver
services and
goods that are properly within its functions efficiently. How can we now
additionally impose on the government the task of having a direct hand in
industrialization by owning and managing state enterprises in industry? Mr.
Presiding Officer, I am willing to be corrected if we can show the good
performance of the government.
MR. VILLEGAS: I will just supplement the remark about State intervention.
Actually, in one of our committee meetings and I am sure Commissioner
Villacorta can attest to this the Committee even moved to delete some
references we made to our neighboring countries that succeeded in
industrialization
because it was Commissioner Villacortas judgment, which we accepted, that
a lot of these countries Korea, Taiwan and the other countries achieved
high
levels of growth at a tremendous human cost dictatorship, authoritarian
leadership which is actually the tradeoff that we are now trying to address
very squarely. We cannot use our neighboring countries 100 percent as a
model precisely because we are now trying to balance human and economic
rights.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not think that any moral proprium
attaches to the name private sector or private capital, especially when
this is
understood in the context of the ambitions of our own people to become
successful entrepreneurs. There is some historical context to this. I still recall
the philosopher Karl Marx when the Industrial Revolution was emerging in
Europe, which moved him to say: This is the greatest liberative force that
mankind has ever known. And that was the first of the stages of national
capitalism based on certain values, like self-denial and frugality. We will
remember that the book by R. H. Toni connects the emergence of
mercantilism and capitalism to the Calvinist values, which means hard work
is great in the
sight of God, and the rewards of hard work are also great in the sight of God.
But I think the most prosperous societies on earth are those that have
successfully combined State activism or State intervention with the
unmatched dynamism of private initiative, which is a fact that cannot be
controverted. We might say something about the defects of such societies,
but if we look at the scale of assessments in the United Nations based on the
per
capita incomes of nations, about 70 percent of all the contributions to the
United Nations and to the multilateral aid program come from these
societies. I
am not an apologist for the sins of capitalism, but I think Filipino capital, as I
understand it and this is the context in which we are describing the
private sector, ought to be given the recognition and the encouragement
that it deserves. After all, there is no question that private initiative is the
engine on which we shall depend, until the form of government changes, for
the development of our country and the generation of wealth that can be
equitably shared among Filipinos.
At present, there are nonperforming assets worth P200 billion in the
government portfolios, and that is the reason we resort to debt and equity
swap which
are a kind of desperate strategy for us to get rid of these nonperforming
assets of government corporations a monument to the waste and,
perhaps, to the
corruption of a certain form of State intervention in the economy. That is the
reason I do not feel the Committee should apologize for the accent that is
being placed on the role of Filipino entrepreneurs in the development of their
own country under this Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. VILLEGAS: Let me react to Commissioner Oples statement. We would
welcome any amendment probably to restore references to indigenous small
and
medium-scale entrepreneurs in the Philippines. I think in this way we can
definitely make the meaning of private sector even clearer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just add that if one were to look at
the economic crisis of the past three years, I think he will note that the
corporations that went down the drain faster were government corporations.
In fact, what sustained the economy during these three years were the small
and
medium-scale enterprises both in the formal and informal sectors of this
country. This is the base upon which we can build on.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.

Before I ask the question, I would like to supplement the comment of
Commissioner Monsod on the phenomenon of corporations properly
belonging to that
discussion we have on cronyism. One important consideration in the
understanding of cronyism is its being a derivative function of feudalism as
we
interpreted it in the committee hearings. Because it was a derivative function
of feudalism, it relied on nonmarket forces, on extraeconomic forces.
Therefore, there was no management expertise that went into this and no
surplus capital was ever plowed back to investment. Rather, there were
expenses for
ostentatious infrastructure projects. In other words, what would have been
part of increasing capital accumulation was drained into these nonmarket
expressions of feudalism or cronyism, such as those projects associated with
the Cultural Center of the Philippines, with tourism and all forms of
nonmarket investments. This was the drift of the discussion at that
committee hearing.
Going back to the questions that I would like to raise, on Section 1, line 15,
reference is made to a broader-based ownership of private enterprises.
What would be included in these private enterprises, and why should private
enterprises be broader-based?
MR. VILLEGAS: We have more and more of the people who participate in the
ownership, either through cooperatives or public corporations that are open
to
thousands of stockholders, so in a way we broaden the base.
MR. BENNAGEN: Would this be limited to Filipino citizens?
MR. VILLEGAS: Basically, yes, but subject, of course, to the 60-40
arrangement, if we approve it.
Going back to Section 2, the first sentence reads:
Since the use of property bears a social function, all economic agents in the
private sector shall contribute to the common good.
As formulated, it appears more as a statement of aspiration, something that
is devoutly to be wished. How is this expected to operate in the new context,
particularly in relation to all those provisions in the Article on Social Justice?

Since I already asked that question, maybe we can proceed to the second
sentence which says:
Individuals and private groups shall be given freedom to establish and
operate economic enterprises.
And then it says:
. . . subject always, however, to the duty of the State to promote distributive
In the first sentence, the reference is general; it is to the use of property
and that this property must have a social function; that is, the
contribution to the common good. My view is that property has a certain
historical specificity and at certain stages, it does perform to serve the
common
good. But at other stages of its historical development, property does not
necessarily contribute to the common good. I suppose that is where some
kind of
State intervention has to take place.
MR. VILLEGAS: I think it is well-established.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. To go back to that possibility of State intervention
particularly in reference to distributive justice, what is envisioned to be the
mode of intervention?
MR. VILLEGAS: It is either the government actually takes over business as
there is nothing wrong with some State enterprises or the government
regulates a
specific industry.
MR. BENNAGEN: By law?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, by law.
MR. BENNAGEN: It shall not set up charity organizations?
MR. VILLEGAS: There are some charity organizations supported by the State
like the Red Cross and the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. The State
can
also do it.
MR. BENNAGEN: Would there be other modes of State intervention that

would truly respond to the provisions of the Article on Social Justice without
violating the complementarity of private initiative and the State?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think we have a perfect example earlier this morning when
we talked about the State subsidizing just compensation when farmers
cannot
afford to pay the whole price. That is clearly State intervention in order to
promote agrarian reform.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, but that is a kind of a one-shot deal. I am thinking in
terms of a long-term program because subsidy has a distorting effect on the
economy.
MR. VILLEGAS: The whole area of taxation has definitely a State intervention
angle.
MR. BENNAGEN: Meaning, taxes could be increased?
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, to redistribute income.
MR. BENNAGEN: Or efficiency of tax collection maybe.
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is one way of looking at it. I do have other questions
but for now I will limit them. I would like to follow this up eventually when we
go into the proportions of control and ownership that the Gentleman
mentioned earlier.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Tadeo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Kasama ako sa Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony. Noong pinag-uusapan natin ang tungkol sa social justice, inalis
natin ang Section
9 na nagsasaad:
The State shall promote the integrated development of agricultural, fishing

and marine resources to meet the basic needs of the people and the
industrialization objective of the country
Kaisa ako sa panawagan nina Commissioners Tan, Foz at Sarmiento na
kailangang ilagay sa Article on National Economy and Patrimony ang tungkol
sa
industrialization. Tanggapin natin ang katotohanan na kapag mahina ang
national economy at patrimony, ang takeoff stage ng Cory government o ang
susunod na
pamahalaan ay mahihirapan. Kailangang malakas ang Article on National
Economy and Patrimony sapagkat dito kukuha ng lakas ang national
recovery. Sa
ganitong kalagayan, ang pagpapatupad ng tunay na reporma sa lupa ng
Article on Social Justice ay kaugnay ng Article on National Economy and
Patrimony.
Kapag ipinatupad ang tunay na reporma sa lupa, magkakaroon ng
purchasing power ang 35 to 40 million people. Ngunit kapag walang national
industrialization
at patuloy ang import liberalization, ang pagtangkilik sa produkto ng mga
dayuhan, bale wala rin ang genuine agrarian reform. Kaya lagi naming
sinasabi na
kasabay ng isang tunay na reporma sa lupa ang pambansang
industriyalisasyon.
Kung mananatiling import liberalization ang ating patakaran, mananatili
tayong agricultural country. Darating ang panahon na hindi na makakayang
tugunan ng
ating lupa ang lumalaki nating populasyon. Ang sobrang lakas sa mga
kanayunan ay kailangang i-absorb ng national industrialization.
Ang kalagayan ng bansa sa kasalukuyan ay malungkot. Sa panig na lamang
ng pagsasaka, 85 porsiyento ng ating itlog ay imported; 53 porsiyento ng
ating pork
ay imported; 63 porsiyento ng ating chicken ay imported; 49 hanggang 73
porsiyento ng ating mga gulay ay imported; 85 porsiyento ng ating fertilizer
ay
imported; 90 porsiyento ng dairy ay imported. Isang bilyong dolyar ang
lumalabas sa kabangbayan ng Pilipinas bunga ng pag-asa natin sa mga
dayuhan.
Halimbawa, 75 hanggang 85 porsiyento ng ating textile ay inaangkat natin
sa labas ng bansa; ganoon din sa appliances. Samantalang napakaraming
Pilipino ang
walang ginagawa kayat dapat tayong lumikha ng tinatawag na backward at
forward integration. Kaya kailangan natin ang malakas na Article on National
Economy
and Patrimony hindi lamang para sa Cory government kundi pati na sa mga
susunod pang pamahalaan. Hindi ako naniniwalang kailangan nating iasa sa
legislature ang pagpapalakas ng Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
Nakita natin ang naging problema sa Article on Social Justice tungkol sa
agrarian reform. Ano ang tinatawag nitong loopholes? Kapag inalis ang by
law sa pariralang The State shall by law, ito ay magiging The State shall
undertake. Inuutusan na ng pamahalaan ang Kongreso at maaaring
magsagawa na agad ng expansion ang Ministry of Agrarian Reform. Subalit
hindi maaaring
magsagawa ang Ministry of Agrarian Reform ng ano mang programa tungkol
sa agrarian reform; hihintayin pa nito ang Kongreso. Ang pariralang shall by
law
ay mayroong positive at negative aspect. Kung ang bumubuo ng Kongreso ay
landlord at comprador class, magkakaroon ito ng negative aspect. Magiging
mabuti
lamang ang shall by law kung ang bumubuo ng Kongreso ay pro-people.
Kaya hindi ako sang-ayon na iasa natin ito sa legislature. Dapat, bilang
supreme law,
ang Saligang Batas ang mag-uutos sa Kongreso; hindi ang Saligang Batas
ang aasa sa Kongreso.
Napakahalaga ng Article on National Economy and Patrimony sapagkat ito
ang take-off stage ng national recovery. Kailangan dito ang isang malakas na
seksiyon tungkol sa national industrialization. Sa palagay ko naman, ang
Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony ay bukas sa isang
malakas na
seksiyon sa national industrialization.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, as we told Commissioner Ople, we, in fact, encourage an
amendment introducing that provision which refers to industrialization. So, I
hope the Gentleman can coauthor the amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I fully appreciate the Committees efforts to define in the broad
stroke some kind of a thrust for the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony but maybe I was expecting more. I had hoped that instead of just
motherhood concepts of self-reliance in economic development, there is an
urgent
need for us to address the imperatives of setting up a definitive mandate,
cutting through the bull, and addressing and defining precisely a specific
industrial policy.
I had hoped that we could have seen a formulation in Section 1 stating, in

effect, the need for an industrial policy that is dynamic and active, and would
stir up a domestic cycle of surplus accumulation and investments.
In other words, the thrust should be to encourage the creation of industries
that will produce capital and intermediate producer goods. It should be going
towards the drift of encouraging small entrepreneurship and encouraging
competition, at the same time, active and direct State support for
investments in
large-scale industries, even as there is a deliberate posture to regulate
monopolistic tendencies of all industries that are now already operating on
this
line of businesses. Why the reluctance? Why the yes on vague, umbrella
principles but no on definitive policies?
MR. VILLEGAS: We said we would definitely welcome an amendment that
would make this statement specific. Given optimum opportunity to develop
to all
economic sectors, we thought that would be sufficient. But if the body thinks
that we should explicate that expression that all economic sectors should be
given optimum opportunity to develop, we would highly welcome some
amendments to that effect.
MS. AQUINO: I went through the minutes of the Committee meeting and,
apparently, these ideas have been surfacing quite perceptibly and
significantly. But I
could not seem to understand why we moved into another direction with a
great deal of diffidence.
MR. VILLEGAS: Because at that time, there was the thinking, which also
permeated many other committees, that it was bordering on legislation. But
if the
body thinks otherwise, we can definitely fine tune that specific phraseology.
MR. MONSOD: May I just ask a question? More than the question of whether
there should be enough provisions citing the need for industrialization, I think
an issue here is economic strategy. If I get the drift of the suggestions of the
Commissioner when she talks about government going into or supporting
large-scale enterprises and government being involved directly in
industrialization, the question that was faced by the Committee was: Should
the
government go into these activities? In the past two or three weeks, we have
been talking about the great demands on the government to deliver social
services. We have been listening to remarks that one of the problems is that
a great amount of the resources of government has been used to finance

corporations, equity contributions, and so on with respect to business
activities. The remark of Commissioner Bennagen about crony companies is
that those
can really be called government enterprises because perhaps 90 percent of
the resources of those companies were really government resources. So, in
that
context, I think the dilemma of the Committee was: What kind of thrust do
we have in terms of the role of the private sector and the public sector in
economic development? Maybe this is a bigger question than just adding a
sentence or a paragraph or several sections on industrialization. As a matter
of
fact, I think the comments of Commissioners Garcia and Sarmiento also
touched on the same issue. This may be a bigger issue than just mentioning
industrialization as part and parcel of national economy
MS. AQUINO: I agree with the Gentleman, but on the question of strategy,
strategic flexibility could only go so far. As far as the Philippine economy is
concerned, we have to grapple with certain givens which would assume
certain definitive answers and solutions. For a fact, we are a country that
wallows in
a neocolonial history. For another fact, whether we like it or not, we are a
country that is economically based on agriculture. In fact, it is generally
perceived that the Philippines is like the vegetable garden of the whole of
Asia. That makes us a basket case for the whole of Asia. We rank 15th among
the
countries rich in natural resources; but we are dormant; we are
underdeveloped and mismanaged. These are certain givens which do not
yield to strategy or
tactical planning in terms of economy.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. But we do have the question of
priority. If we have only a limited amount of resources which is investible at
this
point, how do we use it? Do we put it in capital-intensive undertakings where
the labor, the employment generated is one unit of labor for every P400,000
of capital? Or do we invest it in other activities where one unit of
employment generated is for P20,000 to P25,000 capital? These are very
important
questions on industrialization. As a matter of fact, there was even a
suggestion that the strategy to be enunciated is that we should first have a
complete
program for agricultural development and forget about industrialization for a
while. We did not want to put that because this is a Constitution that is
going to last for a long time, and 25 years from now we may have a fully
developed agriculture that is subsidized by the State, similar to the United
States where they are stuck with overproduction in agriculture. So, we felt
there should be some flexibility as far as that is concerned.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if only I would be allowed to reply briefly.
I will have no quarrel with Commissioner Monsod on that matter. In fact, I am
not willing to go to that extent of specifics; I am only saying that we might
as well clearly define the framework of industrial growth here, and that is
possible in terms of defining what we perceive to be a historical solution to a
historical problem. We do not have to go into the mechanics that would
require specific data management or programming.
MR. MONSOD: We would be willing to accept some amendments or
suggestions in that regard. Essentially the issue is really the mix of the
private and public
sector participation in the economy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me try to get into the discussion in relation to the way
we are reacting to the nature of the State or even its modes of intervention.
It would seem to me that we have not gone beyond the character of the
State during the Marcos years and that we have failed to make a shift in
paradigm
even after the political revolution of February. In the Marcos years we did
have a dictatorship which was an alliance of a fraction of the political elite
and a fraction of the economic elite. I would like to think that that alliance
was dismantled during the February uprising and that we are moving on into
a
new alliance where a broader range of private sector organizations or
groups, individuals, cause-oriented groups, civic organizations are involved;
meaning, we already have a wider range of participants in both the political
and economic exercises to warrant the explosion of some kind of creativity in
the economic sphere that was absent during the Marcos years.
Earlier I indicated that during the Marcos years, there was a lot of distortion
in the process of capital accumulation. I would like to think that those
distortions have been minimized, if not eliminated, and we are now prepared
to have an alliance between the government and the wide range of private
sectors. There should be no resistance to the exploration of viable
relationship between government and this whole range of private
participants.

MR. GARCIA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I make a brief remark.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: During the past few hours we have been zeroing in on three
concepts at least where we had misunderstandings, as Commissioner
Bennagen already
pointed out: public, private, and ultimate objectives. I agree we have been
gripped by the political trauma of martial law years where the whole idea of
public or State enterprises has evolved to have peculiar meanings to most
people. I maintain that we did not have a democracy; I think it is very clear,
it
was a dictatorship, it was kleptocratic, it was not responsive, it was not
accountable and neither was it independent. And there is definitely a change
now to a more popular and majoritarian kind wherein the State could be in
the hands of people.
On the concept of private, I think the Committee is trying to utilize the
concept and expand it to be elastic. Let us take the example of Asia Brewery.
Is it private if it is owned by Lucio Tan? Yes. Is it private if it is owned by the
workers of the company of Lucio Tan? Yes. But there is a very big
difference. Do you call both private sector or private groups? In one sense it
is private but in the other sense, if it is owned by the workers of the
company, it can be an area of social property. It is not in the hands of the
State, neither is it in the hands of Lucio Tan, one individual or one family.
It is an area of social property. So, that is the kind of concept I was trying to
introduce social sector, social property, social area.
On the question of Commissioner Aquino regarding ultimate objectives, we
are not simply working at a document; that is, looking at it piecemeal. What
do we
do now strategy-wise? I think it is a statement of ultimate objectives.
Eventually, we want to have a national economy that is self-reliant and
independent. How do we pursue this? I think central planning, as was
mentioned, is crucial. No matter what kind of economy we have, we have to
have central
planning. Secondly, we must have some form of industrialization which we
can manage in our own terms, based on our own resources. Also, we must
have the
ability to walk on many legs, and not simply be dependent on one or two
trading relationships but on many different and diverse dependencies until
we are,
in a sense, more relatively independent. What we are looking for in this
Article is a supplement, a very strong support, for the Article on Social
Justice.
This is precisely the kind of ultimate objective, the vision of an ultimate
objective and framework. That is all.
I was actually going to propose just as we did in the local government, if the
Commissioner feels that this could help us to come together, to put our
thoughts together and work this thing out thoroughly. After all the
interpellations, we could go to a caucus as we did the last time and hammer
out the
ideas because I am afraid this is not just a matter of semantics. It is really
trying to find but if, upon putting all of our different ideas together, we
can come up with an Article that would truly serve, for a long time, the
upliftment and recovery of our economy and our people. Can we come to a
caucus
together and discuss these ideas and find out what is the real sentiment? We
are not simply debating on the proper wording but on an ultimate vision.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Can the Commissioner give us an idea? Maybe he can write it
out or have a presentation to the Commission on the process of development
that he
has in mind?
MR. GARCIA: I was thinking that perhaps we can come together in a caucus
and discuss what kind of economy we really want to have in the future. Let
us sit
down together, face each other and talk. Maybe after all the interpellations,
we can discuss it. I think we will really save time because we will not be
just amending the different words.
MR. MONSOD: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, what we need are other options that
what the Committee feels are the path or process of development that would
be
appropriate for the country. What we need is an explanation of the other
options available to us.
MR. GARCIA: What I am proposing actually is this: We could come together
and perhaps some of us could propose some alternative ideas. Actually, if
the
Gentleman will look at the minutes of his own committee, he will find that
there have been many ideas expressed already. It is just a matter of putting
them together in a far more integrated fashion.
MR. BENGZON: We would like to start off with the Gentleman. Maybe he
could just write down his ideas and give them to us, and then we can get into
a
caucus. So, we will have a starting point because if we get into a caucus
without any concrete ideas or other options, then we will just be using the
committee report as the basis.
MR. GARCIA: All right, I accept the invitation of the Gentleman. I would like to
invite every single Commissioner here who may have his own ideas
regarding
this point. How can we open the economy so that other social sectors could
become more active participants and enjoy the benefits of economic
recovery? How
can this be pushed? I feel we can enrich this by this kind of participation.
MR. BENGZON: In the meantime, we can continue the various interpellations
we have.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, precisely. My proposal is that after all the interpellations,
we go back to the Article on Local Governments. Is that correct?
MR. BENGZON: No, I was told that under the schedule that we have we are
going back to the Article on Local Governments on Friday morning because
we still
do not have copies of the new report of the Committee
MR. MONSOD: We are willing to ask the Chair if we can have a caucus
tomorrow for this purpose. That might be a good idea.
MR. GARCIA: I would like to suggest this. Let us try to finish all the
interpellations, as we did with the Article on Local Governments, and then we
can
come together and talk.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): May the Chair suggest that during our
merienda recess, Commissioner Garcia and the others talk with the members
of the
Committee on the possibility of having a caucus either this afternoon or
sometime tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think this morning, on motion of the
Chairman of the Steering Committee, the body approved a proposal that we
devote two
sessions to the period of interpellations on the Article on National Economy

and Patrimony. Is that right?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, to get it over with.
MR. VILLEGAS: Including tomorrow morning.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, because we lost two hours on the discussion on the
Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. OPLE: So, unless we are willing to overturn this previous decision, I
would like to suggest that we go ahead with the period of interpellations.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, earlier the Chair recognized
Commissioner Rosario Braid, but at that moment she was not prepared. If
she is now ready
with her interpellation, I ask that she be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to continue on the
same note. I have been working on some amendments because, like the
others, I
note that the document should perhaps contain short-term, medium-term
and long-term strategies and directions. I also suggest emphasis on
entrepreneurship
and small-scale industries and the need to attend to the informal sector of
the economy, like the nonmonetized sector, the need for comprehensive
planning
to ensure that we give incentives to investors. Therefore, we cannot go by
the usual model of allowing just the market forces to provide all the signals.
We need, for instance, protection to agriculture and industry by providing
these sectors full information that would help identify priority areas,
particularly in pricing and profitability. The State must also provide
entrepreneurship with incentives, such as subsidies and tax shelters so that
they
are encouraged to enter these priority areas. I believe that this is one
direction that should be pursued and expressed in terms of a short-term
goal.
Another thing that bothers me is the lack of a vision for the future in terms of
a direction for an independent national economic growth. I would like to
quote a critique by different scholars from several parts of the world who
evaluated the development strategies in Third World countries.
It states:
If development means obtaining and securing the basis of life for the
masses, the worlds population, if it is to increase emancipation of oppressed
people, classes, and marginalized social groups, if it is to aspire to the
creation of a just, nonexploitative and mutually beneficial social order for the
free development of each individual condition and for the free development
of all, then clearly, developmentalism cannot be the answer. Human and
social
development for all can only mean the necessary transformation of the
worlds system into a different social order aimed at a different mode of
production
and a different form of society.
If we could only support this movement even in an evolutionary way towards
South-South cooperation, towards the production of appropriate technology,
appropriate consumption and production style so that we would not be
overdependent on the North, I think it is this kind of vision that I would like to
see
expressed in a development philosophy. We should then move forward,
unleashing all the creative forces of our society towards this direction of
freeing
ourselves from the exploitative international order which has produced an
environment that favors investment of transnational capital and other
inequitable
relationships between the North and the South. I would like to see a provision
which shows the need for short-term and medium-term as well as long-term
strategies which will work towards full sovereignty in the economic sector.
Thank You.
MR. VILLEGAS: We would welcome an amendment to that effect.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Vice-President Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The Vice-President, Commissioner
Padilla, is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I am referring to Section 5 of the 1935 Constitution which is repeated in

Section 14 of the 1973 Constitution, and is again repeated in Section 6 of
Committee Report No. 24. This section provides that:
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred
or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
In accordance with the early decision of Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, 1979
Philippines 461, which held that aliens cannot acquire private agricultural
lands and, therefore, are also disqualified to hold any residential land, the
Committee has included an exception which was found in Section 15 of the
1973
Constitution in favor of natural-born citizens who have lost Philippine
citizenship they may be transferees of private land solely for residential
purposes. The 1973 Constitution mentions as the Batasang Pambansa shall
provide. Under the committee report, it is limited not to exceed an area of
1,000
square meters.
Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, I filed a proposed resolution for
another exemption which would permit, under conditions to be prescribed by
law,
foreign investors engaged in the manufacture of export products as certified
by the Board of Investments to acquire, hold or own private lots with limited
area required in the operation of their export-oriented industrial enterprises.
What motivated me to file this resolution is the policy of our government
to encourage economic growth, to produce national wealth, to help solve the
problem of unemployment, underemployment and poverty, and to afford our
people
a decent life with dignity. One of the potent factors towards economic
reconstruction I prefer to use the word reconstruction rather than
recovery
is foreign investors in industrial enterprises, especially of export-oriented
goods produced with local materials and labor. But such foreign investors
would need private lots for the establishment and operation of their
industrial manufacturing plants. So, the purpose was to permit, as an
exception to
Section 6, another exception.
MR. SUAREZ: Section 7, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. PADILLA: Another exception to Section 6 because Section 7 has only one
exception to allow only a limited area of industrial lots necessary for the
operation of this export-oriented industrial enterprise. I even added under
conditions as may be provided by law. But I found that this proposal was not
even considered by the Committee whether or not it has any merit.
MR. VILLEGAS: It was considered, Mr. Presiding Officer. In fact, there was full
deliberation; we had a number of people from the various sectors the
export-oriented sector, real estate sector and the Committee decided,
although there was no consensus, that it was not an indispensable ingredient
in
attracting foreign capital. But we would leave it up to the body to decide, if
the Gentleman likes to introduce an amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, the prohibition is with regard to aliens
acquiring public agricultural lands. But the prohibition has been extended to
prohibition to acquire private land. If we must encourage foreign investments
and attract foreign investors, especially in the manufacture and export of
products that are export-oriented which may be not only dollar-saving but
dollar-earning and we always say we want economic development does
not the
Gentleman agree with me that this second exception or another exception to
the general rule that private lands are to be reserved exclusively to citizens,
to which I agree, can be followed to attract foreign investments and foreign
industrial enterprises, especially in the manufacture of goods for export and
using as much as possible local materials and necessarily local labor?
MR. SUAREZ: Precisely, the points raised by the Gentleman this afternoon
were taken up in connection with the public hearings conducted by his
Committee.
We remember an English gentleman who presented his situation very
forcefully in the way the Vice-President is presenting it now. One of the
answers given
was the fact that all of these enterprises could flourish and prosper under a
lease agreement. In other words, there was no necessity for that exporter,
who is a foreign investor, to own the land on which the industry will be
established or set up. That was one of the proposed solutions to correct the
situation, a long-term lease without getting involved in the matter of
ownership. The examples were also given in the case of the EPZA or of
industrial
operators wherein certain portions of the EPZA estate were being leased to
companies like Ford Philippines, Mattel and Globe Textile Manufacturing.
They
did not have to own the land on which their industries were set up,
notwithstanding the fact that their industries were, indeed, export-oriented.
But at
any rate, at the proper time, with all the necessary limitations regarding the
area, we in the Committee would be pleased to entertain the proper
amendment.
MR. PADILLA: The lease of industrial lots for long term is not a sufficient
incentive for foreign investors. Moreover, the owners of industrial lots may
not agree on a long-term lease with fixed rentals. However, the fear of
acquiring or owning a limited industrial lot where the manufacturing plant is
established is not serious, for the lot and its buildings are permanent,
immovable real estate which the foreign investor cannot take away, and
such land
improved by these industrial buildings and plants remain as assets of the
country. With regard to lease under long term, some believe that the
prohibition would include not only title or ownership of land but holding land,
which may not be the naked ownership but also the right of use, like the
usufruct or in lease. If lease is on a long-term basis, maybe 25 years
renewable by another 25 or even 99 years, for all practical purposes, that is
like
owning the land. It is not exactly correct to say that all foreign investors are
happy in a continuing lease when their foreign investments, the dollars
they bring in, may not only be used for the plant but also for the acquisition
of a specific, limited industrial lot, which will encourage foreign
investments and the manufacture of industrial goods especially if they are
export-oriented.
We always talk of the State, the private sector and the social aspect. What
will develop this country is creating wealth, producing additional goods and
services. I have heard our friend Commissioner Tadeo mention so many who
are out of work workers, farmers and others. They look for work but they
cannot
find work. Many invoke and rely on the State. The State can help by giving
incentives to the private sector for the production of additional goods and
services. But we cannot really expect social benefits or more distribution of
the benefits of wealth unless we first produce wealth, unless we first
increase our productivity.
The State or the government has never been successful in the operation of
private business. The so-called government-owned and controlled
corporations have
usually been financial failures. The government may only be justified if it
enters into pioneer fields of enterprise which the private sector cannot enter
into, but never for the State to engage in business in competition with
private business.
We must realize that we cannot remove the profit motive in business,
whether it be agriculture, industry or commerce. There must be an incentive
for
investment and there must be a reasonable expectation of profits. These
profits should be shared not only by the owner or capital but also by the
workers
or labor.
If we do not have additional industrial enterprises, we will continue to have
numerous and growing armies of unemployed. Unfortunately, the workers
cannot
help themselves; they need industrial entrepreneurs, usually called the
captains of industries who not only have capital but also experience and
vision to
enter into business enterprises with some risks of loss. That is, in my opinion,
the real approach to a growing national economy.
Mr. Presiding Officer, many think right away of State control or a just share of
workers when we refer to the underprivileged to share in the benefits.
Well and good. But we cannot share the benefits unless we first produce
those benefits. In my opinion, the greatest factors for the production of
wealth
for increased productivity are the entrepreneurs, the private sector, under
the principle of free enterprise and, we must admit, profit motive, subject, of
course, to the regulatory power of the State for the common good.
So, instead of speaking about an ideal society, we have to be more
pragmatic and realistic such that, as according to the Cory government, the
first thrust
is agriculture. Very good, because we must satisfy the needs of our people,
our growing population, and after agriculture will be a certain amount of
industrialization. Maybe Filipino domestic capital cannot undertake big
ventures. That is why we should encourage small-and middle-size
enterprises. But if
we have an opportunity for greater investments by foreign capitalists I am
not an advocate of multinationals but the principle of investments for more
production more economic benefits can be shared by all the elements of
society.
Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: I thank the honorable Gentleman.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Brocka be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I hesitate to speak up because, like Commissioners Quesada and Tan, I am a

layman as far as economics is concerned, and I am only trying to listen to all
the ideas that have been expressed so far.
I share the fears of Commissioner Sarmiento and the apprehensions
expressed by Commissioner Aquino regarding the clarity of some of the
particular
provisions on an industrial policy that should be adopted by this Constitution.
I will mention two things about my own fears and apprehension. First, it is
the words common good. We saw this term in the Preamble; it was all over
the
Article on Social Justice; now it is again in the Article on National Economy
and Patrimony, and I suppose we shall be hearing more of this in the other
forthcoming Articles.
I would like to express my fears because I am a little bit confused about this.
In one of the meetings of the Committee on Social Justice, I expressed my
feelings that the Article on Social Justice definitely shows a preferential
option to the poor, the deprived and the oppressed. Of course, some
questions
were asked as to the way it could impinge on the right to life, liberty and
property. I felt that we were not honest enough the Committee was not
honest
enough in telling some of the Commissioners that were raising questions
on the conflict between social justice and private property, right to eminent
domain, etc., that, definitely, social justice will be bloody and painful, and
that, definitely it will show preferential option for the poor. That clear.
Definitely if you have lands, your lands will be taken away from you to be
given to the Poor.
I guess I was waiting for that, but there was a lot of skimming over and a lot
of euphemisms. Everytime there is a question presented as to the fear of
infringing on the right to property and eminent domain, the answer was
always for the common good, due process of law, in accordance with law,
et cetera.
I bring that up because in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, I
see the same thing. Section 2, for example, states:
Since the use of property bears a social function, all economic agents in the
private sector shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private
groups shall be given freedom to establish and operate economic
enterprises; subject always, however, to the duty of the State to promote
distributive
So, it seems that the phrase common good is a good excuse to neutralize
whatever fears some sectors of society feel regarding the implementation of
these
particular Articles.
I am bringing that up because I would like to ask the Committee once and for
all to give a definition of common good. I do not expect that answered now
perhaps tomorrow or some other time. But I think it would be good if we are
clear insofar as the definition of common good is concerned. Probably, we
can
use the Article on Social Justice as framework, because in the original Article
on Social Justice, there were phrases like social justice is the moral,
cultural, political, economic imperative. However, they were taken out
completely.
So, for the peace of mind of most people who want some clarity on this, I
would ask the Committee to come up with a definition of the common
good.
Secondly, I am in receipt of a correspondence that just arrived today and I
went through it when Commissioner Aquino stood up and spoke about the
Article
on National Economy and Patrimony not being clear or not being brave
enough to come up with a definite policy or industrial policy, call it what you
want.
I was reading this particular correspondence I do not know if the other
Commissioners have it signed by well-known businessmen, some of whom
I know
from the parliament of the streets, containing a proposed constitutional
provision which makes sense to me. It is a proposed constitutional provision
on
industrialization, economic protectionism and Filipinization of the economy,
and it reads:
The State shall promote the full and rapid industrialization of the economy to
generate mass employment. For this purpose, the State shall adopt, among
others, a policy of direct and indirect protectionism that will preserve and
ensure the domestic market for local industries, as well as for agricultural
and other sectors of the economy. The State shall at all times ensure that the
economy is under the control of Filipinos and that industries so vital to
national security do not fall under the control of non-Filipinos.
I would like to follow up what Commissioner Tan said earlier. As I said, when I
read this, it makes sense, although I am not very clear on what
protectionism means in all these things. The reason I read this is for the
Committee to enlighten us on this particular proposed constitutional
provision
being proposed by a group of businessmen.
Whether the Committee wants to adopt this or not, I would like to know why,
since some of the members of the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony are well-known economists and I suppose this was submitted by
economists also probably of a different persuasion, a different outlook and a
different perspective.
I would like to request the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony to discuss this proposal so that laymen like I and others would
understand. I
realize that I am being very naive and very simplistic about this. But I hear
talks from people from the IMF and the World Bank and people from the
other
side, and being a layman, I am completely confused. They speak of
Filipinization. Definitely it sounds good to me, and I think I agree because
their
reasons make sense.
On the other hand, people from the IMF and the World Bank insist on foreign
capital because our economy is in such dire state. So, as a layman, I am
completely confused; would it be asking too much if I ask the Committee to
discuss the principles or policies being recommended here? I suppose if an
explanation is given, it will not only be for me but for many other laymen and
people who are confused about the IMF, World Bank and the school of
Lichauco
or of Constantino. I have read all these and, frankly speaking, I am very
confused. As a Filipino, I am for the Filipinization of the economy.
Commissioner
Garcia suggested that we have a caucus. Probably we can confront the
problem and discuss it once and for all. In this way, we do not talk in
whispers and
say that somebody is a member of the IMF and World Bank, one is a
nationalist and has a tendency of being socialistic or communistic, like when
we were
deliberating on the Article on Social Justice. So, for the enlightenment of
laymen and people who are confused about the kind of industrial or
economic
policies that we will put in the Constitution, may I reiterate that we take
these up in a caucus. As I said, I am terribly confused at the moment.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
To answer the first question of the Gentleman, I will reiterate the answer I
gave to Commissioner Quesada. The common good is defined by the
Committee as
a social order which enables every single member of a society to attain his
or her full development, economically, politically, culturally and
spiritually. So, that is the definition of the common good that we have in
the record. As I told Commissioner Quesada, we can actually substitute
public interest and general welfare, especially in this specific Article on
National Economy and Patrimony because there are situations in the
economic
sphere when the wishes of the majority can be legitimately followed as long
as we do not completely ignore the welfare of the minority. We do not have
to
use the common good repetitively in the specific Article. Some people
want to introduce certain amendments.
On the second point that the Gentleman raised, we would not want to speak
for the group about their definitions of protectionism and all the other words
that they used. They were the ones who made the recommendation and I
think it would be presumptuous of the Committee to speak for whoever
wrote that
specific letter.
MR. BROCKA: I am not asking that the Gentleman define it, but I would like to
find out what he thinks about it as a businessman or economist, or whether
he
is for or against it, and what his reasons are. That is what I am asking for; I
am not asking for his own definition. I do not think I can invite the
proponents to come here and explain but the Gentleman, as businessman
and economist, knows what they are talking about; I do not. So, I would like
to ask
how the Gentleman feels and thinks about it and why. Is it good for the
economy? What are the implications if this is adopted? I think I am speaking
for
the enlightenment of the rest of the Commissioners as far as this is
concerned.
Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: Gladly, we can always give the Gentleman several hours of
lecturing on these issues. This is really a very important illustration of what I
was trying to communicate to Commissioner Aquino that the moment one
tangles with these issues, he is literally bordering on legislation. Whether or
not
we should follow the wishes of the IMF and the World Bank, whether or not
we should develop agriculturally first or when we develop industrially all

these are very specific questions.
MR. BROCKA: I understand the Gentlemans apprehensions about legislating,
but the thing is I become completely confused when I read the Article on
National
Economy and Patrimony. I do not know what it is trying to say. I get the
feeling that it is trying to be very careful and very cautious on something so
vital to our country at the moment so that it becomes acceptable to
everybody. We have to be very clear about our stand; I am not saying that
we are hiding
behind words like common good. This was the same apprehension I
mentioned during the discussion on the Article on Social Justice. We wanted
to please
everybody when, in fact, all I wanted to hear was that social justice will be
bloody and painful; it has preference and is biased toward the poor that if
one has 50,000 hectares, all of it will be taken away. I guess that was what I
was waiting for. The thing is that the discussion went on and on and the
Committee as a group kept saying: No, the land will not be taken away from
you without due process of law, et cetera which was, of course pardon
the
language a lot of bull . . . (deleted by order of the Chair). As I said, the
Committee was not being honest to the Commissioners; it should be honest
with them and tell the Commissioners who were voicing their apprehension
that Yes, under the Article on Social Justice, you will lose your land. That
land
will be taken away from you because we are trying to balance the great
imbalance of social injustice that the majority are propertyless, and that
they
are poor, underprivileged and disadvantaged. We went on talking about the
disadvantaged and the underprivileged but the moment a propertied
landowner
raises questions, our answer was always No, there should be due process of
law, that is why there is Congress, et cetera. I guess what I wanted was
some
honesty in the discussions, and I realize that this is the way the Article should
be worded. But as it is, right now we are sacrificing clarity.
One Commissioner, for example, came up with a resolution for the removal
of the bases as may be provided by law. Of course, it is a joke but there is
a
certain honesty.
MR. OPLE: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I am in full sympathy with the presentation of Commissioner

Brocka but in the course of his impassioned statement, I think he mentioned
a word. I
would not move to delete it but only the last part of the word so that only
bull is retained. (Laughter) Will the Gentleman agree to drop the last part
of the word so that only bull is retained?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none, the motion is approved.
SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF
(Article on National Economy and Patrimony)
MR. MAAMBONG: I have actually two motions to present. The first one is to
suspend consideration of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. MAAMBONG: The second motion, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that in order to
give the Committee and the Members of this Commission time to recharge
their
energies early, and considering that per a report which I just received, one of
us has just been considered indisposed because of fatigue, I move to
adjourn the session.
Chair hears none; the session is adjourned until nine-thirty tomorrow
morning.
It was 5:28 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 56
Thursday, August 14, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:49 a.m., the Vice-President, the Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla, opened
the session.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer
to be led by the Honorable Jose C. Colayco.
PRAYER
MR. COLAYCO: Dear Lord and Heavenly Father, when we assumed office on
June 2, 1986, we solemnly swore to perform our task of framing a new
constitution
that will embody the ideals and aspirations of our people, and guarantee the
enjoyment of our peoples freedom from tyranny and oppression for
generations
to come. We were then eager and able to do what had to be done. It has
been more than two months now since we made that promise. We reaffirm it
now.
The task is tremendous, but we have not spared study, time and diligence to
accomplish what we have set out to do. In the process, some of us, including
Your humble servant, are beginning to falter and to fall behind. Others have
had to drop back out of strain and sheer fatigue and exhaustion. Our spirit is
faltering; our health weakening. We need Your help.
We beseech You, dear Lord, restore our energy and rekindle our spirit, so that
we can carry on and resume our assigned task to its final and successful
completion. Amen
ROLL CALL
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present *
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bengzon
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present *
Bernas
Present *
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Absent
Brocka
Present *
Reyes de los
Present *
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present *
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present *
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present
Laurel
Present
Treas
Present
Lerum
Present *
Uka
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villacon
Present
Monsod
Present *
Villegas
Present

Bacani.
The President is absent.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we dispense with the reading
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we approve the Journal of
yesterdays session.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
Report, the Vice-President making the corresponding references.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Geronimo A. Carreon of 263 Turingan Street,
Santiago, Isabela, proposing that teachers should not be compelled to
perform election
duties; civil service employees should be on equal footing with the military
personnel when it comes to retirement; age limit should be required of
candidates for president and vice-president, among others.
Communication from Rev. Paul B. Marx, O.S.B., of 418 C Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 2002, saying that if abortion is legalized, it becomes a
primary
means of birth control; some people will not even bother with the use of
contraception; young people will have increasing irresponsible sexual
intercourse
because they know they can always get rid of it, but expressing the hope
that the new Constitution will contain protection for the unborn from the
moment
of conception.

Principles.
Communication from Mr. Ric C. Rubia of Claveria, Masbate, transmitting
Resolution No. 86-55 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Claveria, requesting the
transfer
from the Philippine Gamefowl Commission to the local executives the power
to issue cockpit license and permit.
To the Committee on Local Governments
Communication from the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines,
signed by its President. Arthur G.D. Gilmour, 3rd Floor Electra House, 115117
Esteban St., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, urging the retention of the
current 60/40 restrictions on foreign participation in the area of
telecommunications and expressing apprehension that further reduction of
foreign equity ceiling might dampen the enthusiasm for additional
investment and
subsequently create an unnecessary gap in the overall development of the
telecommunications industry.
Communication from Mr. Benjamin M. Orteza of Butuan City, transmitting
Resolution No. 47-86 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Butuan, seeking to
incorporate
in the Constitution the following proposals: (1) that the State shall limit the
exploitation, development and use of the countrys natural resources to
natural-born Filipinos; (2) that salvaging, torture, hamletting, zoning, food
blockade and similar acts in any form shall in all cases be prohibited and
shall be punishable by law; (3) that the State shall provide free elementary
and secondary education; and (4) that youth and student organizations right
and freedom to sympathize with the peoples struggle shall not be stifled or
suppressed.
Communication from Mr. Oswaldo Bacarza of Dipolog City and sixty-one (61)
other signatories expressing strong support to the following: (1)
enshrinement of
health as a basic human right; (2) nationalization of the drug industry; (3)
creation of peoples congresses and sectoral consultative committees to
enshrine peoples participation in policy and decision-making processes of
the State; (4) prioritization of health and other social services; (5) enactment
of laws to promote better mother-child health; and (6) respect for the right of
privacy between patients and doctors, among others.
Letter from Mr. Leandro I. Verceles, Suite 612/614 Manila Hilton, United
Nations Avenue, Manila, submitting, in behalf of the Philippine Council for
Foreign Relations, Inc., proposals in respect to some provisions of the
proposed Constitution, specifically on foreign military bases in the
Philippines.
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Elly Velez Pamatong of Room 600, VIP Building, 1140 Roxas
Blvd., Ermita, Manila, submitting his suggestions on Declaration of Principles
for consideration by the Constitutional Commission.
Principles.
Resolution 67-68 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Butuan City, signed by
City Mayor-Designate Guillermo R. Sanchez and other city officials,
expressing
support to the approved resolution of the Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions, fixing the term of office of President Corazon C. Aquino
and
Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel for a period of six years counted from
February 25, 1986.
Telemessage from the Association of Philippine Physicians in America seeking

the amendment of Section 7 of Proposed Resolution No. 496 so as to allow a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship
to be a transferee of private lands.
Communication from Ms. Ruth B. Duran of Pagadian City, transmitting
Resolution No. 106 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pagadian City,
expressing
resentment over the lack of recognition extended to the City Chief Executive
by the sponsors/organizers of the Baganian-wide Dialogue on Human Rights
held
at Pagadian City on June 26, 1986, and the ConCom public hearing held on
July 12, 1986 where no Mayors permit was secured for the purpose.
One hundred eighty-six letters from students of the Infant Jesus Academy,
Silang, Cavite, all seeking to include in the Constitution the following
proposals: (1) a No-U.S. Military Bases Agreement; (2) an anti-nuclear power
plant; (3) the promotion of Philippine sovereignty over our natural resources;
and (4) a No-U.S. or any foreign intervention on Philippine affairs.
Principles.
Communication from Mr. Rodolfo V. Revilla, Jr. of the Forestry Development
Center, U.P. College of Forestry, Los Baos, Laguna, seeking for the inclusion
in the Constitution a basic statement on the need to conserve our natural
resources, and to exempt from the provision that leases for exploration of
natural resources be limited to a maximum of twenty-five years, renewable
for not more than twenty-five years.
One hundred three letters with four thousand eight hundred fifty-one
signatories with their respective addresses, all seeking to include in the
Constitution a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn
Principles.
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, entitled:
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 111,
120, 129, 137, 149, 214, 241, 254, 262, 285, 294, 348, 67, 362, 427, 443,
458,
461, 462, 463, 464, 473, 474, 475, 476, 483, 484, 485, 487, 490, 492, 494,
503, 527 and 529.
Sponsored by Hon. Suarez, Ople, Padilla, de Castro, Foz, Maambong, de los
Reyes, Jr., Tingson, Lerum, Sarmiento and Tan.
Cosponsored by Hon. Natividad, Jamir and Davide, Jr.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NOS. 496 and 533
(Article on National Economy and Patrimony and
Provision on Ancestral Lands)
Continuation
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we continue the deliberations on
the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.

MS. QUESADA: I would like to have a rather irregular motion, if this will be
considered by the floor. But I feel hesitant discussing the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony without first responding to a clamor, which
has been received by the Commission only yesterday, of a broad sector of
our
country representing the business sector, the labor, the consumers and other
sectors. They would like to be part of this discussion which might not be
realized if we continue the discussion of the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony today. I would like to suggest the postponement of the
deliberation
on this particular Article for tomorrow and instead continue the discussion on
the Article on Local Governments. We have just received the amended Article
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: What does the Floor Leader say?
MR. VILLEGAS: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. VILLEGAS: I would strongly object to the motion, first of all, because in
response to the request of Commissioner Brocka yesterday, I have fully
prepared for a point-by-point examination of the proposal of this coalition of
businessmen referred to. Actually that was my plan. I think the request of
Commissioner Brocka was very meritorious. This Commission has been
bombarded with a lot of proposals on the outside with all sorts of technical
jargons
like import liberalization, protectionism and many others. In response to the
request of Commissioner Brocka, could I ask the Chair for some minutes to
actually explain some of these details to the laymen, the nonspecialists in
economics? I think they will be given sufficient hearing since I have been in
close contact with Ronnie Concepcion and all the others who are in that
coalition
MS. QUESADA: Many of us feel that this particular Article is a very important
part of this document that we are formulating. While we have spent so much
time on the Article on Social Justice, we feel that there should also be justice
in the discussion of this very vital aspect which would affect the rest of
the provisions that we will introduce in this Constitution.
So while we respect the opinion of the members of the Committee, we feel
that a broad participation of all these sectors should be allowed in the
discussion of so vital an issue as the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony. There has been a representation made that tomorrow if this body
would be
so open enough to hear them, various groups from the private sector
businessmen, consumers, labor, and many others would be coming here. I
think it is
our responsibility to respond to them.
If we had spent some time listening to the proponents of the pro-life when
they struggled or lobbied and made representations for the right of the
unborn
child, I suppose that this issue would have been just as important to be given
due consideration. We feel that we are being rushed into finishing an
article which will affect the future of our country. We agree that we have
economists here, but as Commissioner Brocka suggested yesterday, we
would like
to have a free discussion on this Article because most of us are not
economists. We would like to have these two perspectives or points of view,
if this
body would be so broadminded enough to respond to this representation.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President, actually, the report of the Committee
on the National Economy and Patrimony was just an insertion because what
was
really scheduled is the report of the Committee on Local Governments which
was interrupted because of certain questions raised during the plenary
session.
Inasmuch as the report of the Committee on Local Governments is ready,
and I have asked its Chairman who said that he is raring to sponsor the
reformulated
report of the Committee on Local Governments, I join Commissioner Quesada
in moving that we take up first the scheduled report of the Committee on
Local
Governments.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Vice-President.

MR. DE CASTRO: We stopped deliberating on the Article on Local
Governments because there are certain amendments which the Committee
itself will still have
to work on. We are now in the middle of the period of sponsorship and
debate on the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. We do not like to
leave this
subject now because leaving it will be like stopping in the middle of the
street and forgetting what we have already done. So, let us cross this street.
Let us finish first what we have started to do and go to the amendments.
Then the new report on the Article on Local Governments may be taken up
later on.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RODRIGO: May I add something to that? I received this committee report
on the Article on Local Governments, as amended, only five minutes ago. I
would
like to have time to study this matter. So, I am sorry to oppose the motion to
postpone consideration of the very important matter of this particular
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Vice-President, may I join Commissioners Quesada and
de los Reyes in their motion to defer discussion on the Article on National
Economy
and Patrimony. The people of Cordillera are still here. They are waiting for our
decision on local autonomy. I think it is but fair that we should tackle
local autonomy and local governments before we finish the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony. In fairness to them who came all the way
from the
Mountain Province and also to the Muslims who have representatives in this
Commission, may I request that we defer our discussion on the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony, and tackle the Article on Local
Governments? After all, the Chairman of the Committee on Local
Governments is ready to
defend the said Article.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Mr. Vice-President, I do not see any harm if we postpone our
discussion on the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. But I can see
very much
harm if we rush into this discussion without the desire to hear what others
have to say. It is a very sensible desire. What will suffer will only be our
schedule.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas, the Chairman of the
Committee, is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: I would propose a compromise. Since there are just very few
individuals who want to continue the interpellations and also to satisfy the
reasonable request of Commissioner Rodrigo, I suggest that we allow one
hour to finish the Unfinished Business yesterday, and then we go to the
Article on
Local Governments during the second half, as we did yesterday. Then I would
be willing to postpone the discussion on the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony until Monday.
Since there were very important questions raised yesterday that are still very
fresh in the minds of the Commissioners, I would ask for at least one hour
where we could address the issues raised by Commissioner Brocka, and
others can continue to interpellate. Some were pleading for a possibility to
continue
the discussion this morning, so that is a compromise. Let us take up the
Unfinished Business yesterday, and then we can move on to the Article on
Local
Governments so that the people will have the opportunity to read the revised
report of Commissioner Nolledo. Afterwards we go on as is needed for that
Article. We can postpone the deliberation on the amendments to the Article
on National Economy and Patrimony until next week.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RODRIGO: This is only an inquiry. What is the meaning of listening to
the proponents from different sectors? Will there be another public hearing
by
the Committee? Will there be a public hearing by the whole body where we
will listen to the different representatives of the different sectors who have
sent their suggestions regarding national economy? I would like to know the
meaning or the mechanics of this question.
MS. QUESADA: If the Commissioner has read the papers today, for the first
time in the history of the Philippines, a broad coalition of various sectors in
our society met at the historic Club Filipino. There is such a growing ferment
in these sectors about the direction to which the national economy of our
country will be decided on in this Constitution. Many of us feel that the
various sectors have not been given broad participation in the discussion of
the
national economy. It is true that there were various committees and
representations made during the public hearings; still we feel that in
comparison with
the way the Committee on Social Justice conducted its hearings, we as a
body have not really gone through hearing all the important points that need
to be
considered on this very vital area.
So, these sectors have made representations to come here tomorrow and
this constituent body will be converted into a big committee to hear them,
whether
here or outside, so that we can be enlightened on the various aspects that
we need to consider as we finally make our amendments and our decisions
on the
national economy. So like what we did for certain groups, like the Pro-Life
Movement and others, when we sat and heard them, we hope that this
coalition of
pro-Filipino, pro-industrialization and pro-decolonization of our economy
would also be given time to be heard by all of us, not just by a committee
but by
all the Members of the Commission.
That is the reason behind the request for a postponement so that we
cannot be accused of really having pushed through in a hurry to finish this
particular Article in comparison with the other articles which took us about a
week.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to seek for more clarification because the only
motion that I heard was to postpone the consideration of the Article on
National
Economy and Patrimony for tomorrow. It appears that it is not only to
postpone the consideration but to convert this body into a committee of the
whole and
to listen to the different sectors which have proposed certain amendments.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The motion has been sufficiently discussed. Shall we
submit it to a vote?
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Vice-President, there is a compromise proposal, an
amendment which I think is reasonable. I think we should act on that first.
MR. RAMA: May I move that we suspend the session for two minutes to
discuss the compromise.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 10:19 a.m.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, there was some kind of a meeting of the minds
and they decided that we finish first the interpellations, after which we would
decide what to do next.
Before we proceed with the interpellations, I would call on Commissioner
Monsod to clarify certain points.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Alonto want to be recognized first?
MR. ALONTO: Could I be recognized after Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: I just want to clarify certain points that were raised here. First,
that there were no exhaustive hearings by this Committee. I believe that
the facts and the records will bear me out that there were very exhaustive
hearings conducted by this Committee where all position papers submitted

were
considered. Second, there was a suggestion here that the papers submitted
were not considered yesterday and that those who, in effect, are critical of
the
Committees report represent the pro-Filipino view. I believe that that is an
unkind statement. Third, if there is any suggestion that we should listen to
one sector or a group who wants to propound its views, despite the fact that
we have finished the public hearings, what this Commission should do is to
convene in caucus to discuss this among ourselves. And if there is going to
be a reopening of this through a consultative meeting or a committee
hearing or
the committee of the Whole, then it is our obligation to listen to all sides. If
this Commission does not feel that it can give opportunity for all
proponents of different views to be heard, then it is not fair to listen to only
one view.
Thank you.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Floor Leader
that we proceed to the period of interpellations on the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony and later on decide to go into caucus as suggested
by Commissioner Garcia yesterday? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is
approved.
So we request the Chairman and the Committee members to take their
places in the front table to continue the period of interpellations on the
Article on
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, before we do that, I ask that Commissioner
Bengzon, the Chairman of the Steering Committee, be recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President, we have revised the schedule of the
articles to be deliberated upon and the new schedule is on top of each of the
Commissioners desks. But due to the situation today, I think we will have to
revise it again. That is why I am before this microphone. I was told by
Commissioner Alonto that Friday is the most important holiday for the
Muslims all over the world. Looking at the new schedule, we will find that the
Article on Local Governments is scheduled for Friday. So Commissioner
Alonto has requested this Member to inform the Commission that he plead
for a
deferment of the consideration of the Article on Local Governments until

Saturday.
Therefore, as Chairman of the Steering Committee, I would like to move that
we consider the Article on National Economy and Patrimony starting today up
to
tomorrow, and then we consider the Article on Local Governments on
Saturday. Also, together with this motion, Commissioner Alonto is requesting
that the
Commissioners make an additional sacrifice of having an all-day session on
Saturday so we can finish the Article on Local Governments.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the Chairman of
the Steering Committee?
MR. ALONTO: I second the motion, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Vice-President, may we be recognized?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
Substantially, in principle, we have no objection to the proposal submitted by
the Chairman of the Steering Committee, but I was going to pick up the
suggestion which was advanced yesterday by the honorable Commissioner
Garcia that after the period of interpellations, we will call a caucus preferably
during lunchtime today. Hopefully, we can finish the period of interpellations
in an hour-and-a-half. Then we could determine in the caucus the procedure
to be adopted in connection with the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony without committing ourselves to accepting the proposal earlier
submitted by
the Chairman of the Steering Committee that we will continue the discussion
on the National Economy up to tomorrow.
I think that is a better way of doing it rather than making a commitment on
the floor this morning. Let us resolve that in the caucus. That is my
respectful suggestion.
MR. BENGZON: All right.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: So, we agree to continue the interpellations.
MR. BENGZON: Yes. But has the body agreed that we will defer the
consideration of the Article on Local Governments on Friday? In other words,
has the body
agreed that we will not take up the Article on Local Governments on Friday
because that is the meat of the plea of Commissioner Alonto?
MR. SUAREZ: I think there is merit in that suggestion. However, I have here
with me the memorandum of the Chairman of the Steering Committee where
he sets
August 18 and 19 for the continuation of the discussion on Committee Report
Nos. 24 and 32 on the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. In other
words, even under this schedule, there is no need to terminate the
discussions on the Article on National Economy and Patrimony and,
hopefully, the caucus
would be productive of results insofar as the scheduling of discussions is
concerned.
Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, all I am asking is that we do not take up the Article on
Local Governments on Friday. Then we can discuss the rest during the
caucus.
MR. SUAREZ: How about this afternoon?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I merely want to add something that would make the Constitutional
Commission realize that our request for not putting up the report of the
Committee on
Local Governments tomorrow is due to what we call in Islam as Yaum ul Nahr
or the Day of Sacrifice the most important religious holiday in the Muslim
world. Because of that, we, as Muslims could not attend to other work except
to celebrate that day. That is why we requested the postponement of the
deliberations on the Article on Local Governments from Friday to Saturday.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion to postpone or
transfer the discussions on the Article on Local Governments from Friday to
Saturday? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, the motion to continue and finish the period of
interpellations has already been approved. I ask that we continue the period
of interpellations now.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: That is why I have been asking the Chairman and the
Committee members to take the front seats for any further or additional
interpellations from other Members of the Commission.
MR. VILLEGAS: Will the members of the Committee join me here in occupying
the front table?
MR. MONSOD: This committee report was signed by all the members of the
Committee and, therefore, may I ask that the other members of the
Committee join us
at the table in front.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: May the other members of the Committee join the
Chairman.
Mr. Floor Leader, are there any further interpellators?
MR. RAMA: There were some reservations but the parliamentary situation is
that the Chairman of the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony
is
supposed to answer pending questions in the last session. So, I ask that
Commissioner Villegas be recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: This is in response to the very meritorious request of
Commissioner Brocka yesterday for me to give a very brief technical
explanation of
some terms used in specific proposals that we have received from different
groups. I fully sympathize with the noneconomists in the Commission who
really
have been given very short time to prepare to respond to specific technical
issues that are being raised. If the Commissioner would bear with me, I
would
like to literally deliver a short lecture on economic terms since there are
words and phrases that we will have to grapple with like protectionism,
import liberalization, national industrialization and industrial policy. It is
understandable that lay persons would want, first of all, to have
simple definitions of these terms. There were also requests for a more open
presentation of specific issues on which we may be able to vote either in
caucus or during the period of amendments. That is also the intention of
these introductory remarks to delineate the issues that came from
yesterdays
period of interpellations. In a way, I am also responding to the implication of
Commissioner Brockas statement that there should be complete mental
honesty, as we say in Spanish, cuentas claras. So, let us not have hidden
agendas, so to speaker in this Article.
Let me first comment on the apprehensions expressed by a number of
interpellators yesterday about the frequency with which the words private,
private
enterprise and private individual appear in the Article. I checked the
number of times the words State or government, or President or
Congress
appear, and I can assure the body the number of times that the word State
is mentioned is about five times that the number of times the word private
is
mentioned.
First of all, I would like to say that the majority of the members of the
Committee are unabashedly in favor of an economy that is propelled mainly
by
private individuals private groups or nongovernmental agencies. So the first
issue that is very easy to delineate is: Do we want an economy that is
propelled mainly by an activist State or do we want an economy that is
propelled mainly by the private sector? Definitely, the spirit of the committee
report is that we want an economy that is propelled mainly by the private
sector and there is absolutely no hidden agenda about the specific
statement.
It is very clear that in all the public hearings and in the Committee meetings,
although there were always dissenting opinions, there was a categorical no
to the following forms of economy:
1. State capitalism This is a form of economy in which although
recognizing that the means of production can still belong to private
individuals the
government decides to take over a lot of economic activities from food
distribution like KADIWA, to steel mills, to all types of goods and services,
such
as had occurred during the Marcos regime. This is a form of economy that
has been clearly repudiated by this committee report we do not want
state
capitalism. We do not want the State to get into all types of to
paraphrase Commissioner Aquino, economic adventurism economic
activities in which
it is not competent.
2. Socialism It is also very clear in the committee report that we gave an

even more resounding no to socialism. It is defined as a form of economy in
which the goods of production, the means of production, can be owned only
by the State in principle. That, of course, is even more condemnable than
state
capitalism, from the standpoint of the committee report.
3. Communism I do not have to say that the most categorical no has been
given to communism which incidentally, is the most bankrupt form of
economic
organization, and which has made Deng Xiaoping, the head of China, very
famous all over the world.
The main reasons for our choosing the private sector as the engine not only
of economic growth but of equitably distributing income and generation of
full
employment which are the three goals of economic development can be
summarized in the following:
1. It is based on our belief in human freedom that a private-sector economy
maximizes the opportunity for individual freedom.
2. As regards state capitalism: As explained by Commissioner Monsod
yesterday, it is very clear that even if it is legitimate for the State to take
over
some economic activities since that is very possible in a mixed economy, but
given todays circumstances when the government is unable to provide
billions
and billions of pesos for social services like education and health, and for
paying the salaries of schoolteachers at the rate of P3,000 a month, it is
really irresponsible for the Philippine government to start interfering in
economic activities when it cannot even take care of its own household
3. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. All over the world, from
Communist China to Socialist France or Spain, to Australia and New Zealand
with
their labor parties, to capitalistic United States, there is a consensus: Let the
private sector the private entrepreneurs, the small-scale capitalists
be the engine of economic development. Deng Xiaoping, Mitterrand, and
Reagan all agree to this consensus. Hence, if one wants to be completely
empirical,
if one is impatient with motherhood statements and with ideologies, I think
the strongest evidence is that in no part of the world is the State recognized
as the main engine of growth.
Another issue that was brought up during the period of interpellations was
the question of national industrialization. That is one of the magnificent
obsessions of this coalition that we are willing to listen to and, I must repeat,
we have time and time again listened to in the past public hearings. As I
must say also in fairness to some members of the Committee, they were
given all the chances to explain what they meant by national
industrialization.
This is just to elaborate on what I answered Commissioner Aquino about a
specific point. Pardon me for sounding pedantic but let us make sure that we
understand the word industrialization.
In order to understand the word, we must understand that there are several
sectors of the economy and one of these is called the primary sector which is
involved in either agriculture, fisheries or mining. Anything that has to do
with the growing of raw materials is called primary. Every country that has
enough agricultural resources starts with a situation where anywhere from
60 to 80 percent of the labor force is involved in hand-to-mouth existence,
producing raw materials just for day-to-day survival.
As the income of that nation increases, and it is able to provide sufficiently
for its most basic necessities which have to do with food and clothing and
shelter which are basically taken from the so-called primary sector or the
raw material sector then the secondary sector called manufacturing
starts
becoming predominant, both in the share of the labor force and in the value
of the product that is produced by the whole nation. Strictly speaking,
industrialization is the increasing predominance of the secondary sector
called manufacturing in both the labor force and in the value of the goods
and
services produced in the economy.
Then there is the tertiary sector which is the sector that produces services
from education to banking, to health services, to insurance all those
phases
of the economic life in which tangible goods are not produced but intangibles
called services, which also expand, as agriculture and manufacturing, are
only auxiliary to both agriculture and manufacturing.
To update the body with the latest terminology, there is now the so-called
quaternary sector which produces services which have absolutely nothing
to do
with helping agriculture or manufacturing. It is not a handmaid to either
agriculture or manufacturing.
What is this sector? This is the sector that is becoming very predominant in
every industrialized country. It includes tourism the arts, and all other
intangibles which people who earn $10,000, $12,000, or $13,000 per capita
increasingly spend their money on. For example, they travel all over the
world
buying art collections. That is what we call the quaternary sector.
It is obvious in the experience of all modernized countries that
industrialization in itself is not a fetish nor an idol that has to be worshipped
on the
economic altar. It is just one stage of the development process. As we get
individuals to earn more and more, they go from primary to secondary, then
to
tertiary and finally, to quaternary.
That is the background behind the reluctance of the majority of the members
of the Committee to start singling out sectors in a constitution that should
last for centuries. The moment we single out the second sector called
manufacturing, which is industrialization, then we have to say, Therefore,
30 to
50 years from now we should accent the service sector.
Incidentally, in the United States, the service sector is already the
predominant sector. More than 40 percent of the labor force is in services. It
is no
longer in manufacturing, and that is increasingly the case in Japan.
And so, this is the reason we have been very careful not to build into our
Constitution some very legitimate short-term and medium-term concerns of
this
coalition. These phrases, short-term, medium-term long-term, were
used by Commissioner Rosario Braid yesterday. And I must respectfully
disagree with
Commissioner Rosario Braid that we cannot incorporate into a constitution
short-term, medium-term and long-term. Otherwise, we will not know where
to stop.
The phrase industrial policy which was used by a number of interpellators
yesterday is also fraught with dangers. Let me cite the following:
Item 1. Stalin was obsessed with an industrial policy to industrialize at any
cost. In the name of state militarism, he actually had millions of small
Russian farmers called kulaks liquidated because they refused to cooperate
with his industrial policy.
Item No. 2. Mao Tse Tung had his great leap forward, again following an
industrial policy to get China to industrialize at any cost. That violated
human
rights galore because the Chinese were forced to go through years and years
of starvation since their leader, Mao Tse Tung, and the other members of the
Communist Party were so obsessed with the great leap forward.
It is very dangerous to talk about forcing through a certain policy as regards
which sector to favor at any given time.
Commissioner Bennagen yesterday used the phrase non-market forces
when he was referring to crony capitalism. When we start constitutionalizing
which
sectors to encourage, we are completely forgetting that what should
determine which sector should be given attention to at any given time is the
market,
not some high-and-mighty planning agency, or a state corporation that will
say we have to do this and we have to do that.
That is the detailed background about why there was hesitation to start
mentioning sectors. That is why we agreed, and that was the work of a team
led by
Commissioner Suarez, to have that omnibus provision which states that all
economic sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. We
thought that
was a better phrase rather than singling out a specific sector. But as I said
yesterday, as long as we can avoid the risk of forcing through
industrialization, at an opportune time, I am willing and I am sure the
members of the Committee would be willing to entertain an amendment
that could
mention industrialization but always in tandem with other economic sectors.
Then there is this very open question on the role of foreign investors.
Actually, this is in response again to an interpellation, the first one of
Commissioner Bennagens, when he questioned the phrase undue foreign
control. In this world of interdependence, the moment we are
interdependent on all
the other parts of the world, control is always relative. To a certain extent, we
are controlled, whether we like it or not, by those who supply us with
petroleum, those who lend us money and those who provide our babies with
indispensable milk. That is why in the Committee meetings, it was decided
that we
should expurgate from the Constitution phrases like foreign domination,
foreign control and neo-colonialism because they sound self-flagellating.
They are very indicative of an inferiority complex, and those were the words
used by the Committee members. They were fully discussed, and we decided
that
we would remove such phrases as foreign control, neocolonialism, et
cetera because we do not put those negative things in a constitution for then
we
would sound foolish.
It is very clear that we need foreign investment. There is no question about
that and that is the stand of the Committee. It is a supplement to domestic
savings. Now, to go beyond that motherhood statement, domestic savings
today in the Philippines are in the worst state we ever had in our postwar
history.
During the last 20 years, we could invest 30 percent of our national income
or what is called GNP. Out of that 30 percent, only 25 percent was raised
by
Filipinos; the 5 percent had to be borrowed and that is why we went on a
borrowing spree. Does the body know what is the state of investment now in
the
Philippines after the devastation wrought by the last regime? Instead of 30
percent we can invest only 15 to 18 percent, and out of that, most of it has
to
be literally squeezed from the domestic sources because as we very well
know, our international credit standing is very bad. That is why it is very
clear
that for many years to come we will need foreign capital to supplement
domestic savings in order to help the millions and millions of Filipino people
who
are unemployed, underemployed and those who are below the poverty line.
So when we say we need foreign capital, it is not to fatten the pockets of the
rich. It is to provide opportunities for the millions of people who are looking
for work.
And, finally, let me just explain this. I am sure the body will end up more
confused and I am not saying this with a condescending attitude. As I
mentioned
to Commissioner Romulo in private, the issue of import liberalization, for
the information of those who have not been following economic literature,
has
been debated over the last 200 years. What is this issue of import
liberalization and what is the related concept of protectionism which
Commissioner
Brocka found very intriguing?
As I said, when we were just beginning our process of development, the
majority or 60 to 80 percent of our people are in agriculture. We are
producing
merely food products and raw materials. We have very little manufacturing.
Now, there is a legitimate argument in favor of protecting fledgling local

industries. Suppose we want to start food processing or fish canning, say,
sardines. In the beginning, we just start our process of development.
Obviously,
the Japanese and the Koreans can produce canned fish more efficiently
because they already have a lot of tinplates being produced there. They
already have
tremendous technologies and economies of scale, not to mention the
abundant capital that they are able to get at 4 to 5 percent rate of interest.
On the
other hand, the local fish canners are going to be at a tremendous
disadvantage in the beginning because they have a very small market and
they do not have
abundant capital. So it is legitimate to protect those industries when they are
still infants. That is why it is called the infant industry argument.
That was exactly what we did in the 50s and the 60s.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in protectionism at the beginning of the
efforts of industrialization; but, without boring this body with all the debates
that have been going on for decades, in contrast, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand
and Malaysia were able to phase out their infant industry protection after 10
to
15 years. They started to get their industries to open up more and more to
outside competition so they could have the psychological pressure to be
more
efficient.
In contrast, in the Philippines, we lingered too long on this stage of protecting
our industries. That is my opinion. There are other economists who are
entitled to their contrary opinion. They will say: But we need to protect
industries forever and ever because there are so many changes in the world
economy.
Efficiency is a relative term. The Americans are protecting their sugar. I
listened to them and I assure everyone I have listened to them so many
times.
But that is exactly the point. The nonspecialists, the lay persons, are going to
hear equally convincing arguments to protect local industries or to let
local industries compete in the world market. On one hand, to protect local
industries, pity all of those people who are going to be unemployed. On the
other hand, let these local industries compete in the world market after a
given time. Why? It is because there are millions of Filipino consumers of
canned sardines, textile products and all types of housing materials. If the
Filipino consumers are forever asked to pay prices which are two, three or
three-and-a-half times more than what they can get from other countries,
who are we protecting? I am not saying that I am dogmatic about one or the
other.
I am listening to them, and I still continue to listen to them. But these types
of debates should better be left to the halls of Congress and not to
Commissioners who do not have either the expertise or the time to actually
decide, at a given period of our economic history, who is right the coalition
or the government ministers who are in favor of import liberalization.
I am not, in any way, taking sides in this specific presentation. So this is, as I
said, a short economic lecture, and I must beg the bodys indulgence
because I really inflicted this group with a professorial stance. However, that
was the request of Commissioner Brocka. Now, we are open for
interpellations.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
The most topical of the subjects covered by Commissioner Villegas brief but
sweeping presentation I congratulate him for condensing several volumes
worth of expertise in just a few minutes is all about import liberalization.
This is, of course, part of the structural adjustment prescription of the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, is it not?
MR. VILLEGAS: It does not have to be part, in fact; it can be done completely
independent of what the World Bank and the IMF people tell us.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but the IMFs coercive power helps not so long the political
will of governments otherwise incapable of, let us say, choosing a painful
step
of import liberalization.
MR. VILLEGAS: I must say this: Get some help. But let me just say that, as
early as 1964 to 1965, more than 20 years ago, Gerry Sicat, who was then a
professor of the UP School of Economics, and John Power, too, wrote
voluminous tracts and essays saying we have to liberalize imports. We have
to get the
economy on an export-oriented track. That was the opinion of a group of UP
people.
MR. OPLE: Even among the objectors Commissioner Villegas will have to
agree let us say, our friends in the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and
Industry,
and some of their affiliated trade or manufacturing associations, there is

agreement in principle that import liberalization must be allowed in order to
expose our industries to more competition and, perhaps, even competition
among themselves. That is how they develop the muscle to stay competitive,
meaning
the ability to produce better goods at lower costs. But do we have to choose
this greatest slump in our economic history in order to execute an import
liberalization policy when, as a matter of fact, we have about 50 percent
over-capacity in our existing industrial plants? Do we have to choose that
most
notorious slump in our economic history when so many thousands have lost
their jobs? Can we not take charge of a phasing process and postpone this to
better times? I refer to the decision to liberalize imports.
MR. VILLEGAS: In fact, I have made my economic opinion publicly known. I
am in favor of a two-year postponement, and for us to study industry by
industry
to find out why they are still noncompetitive. If after two years we prove
that they are noncompetitive, not because of incompetence or inefficiency
due
to high rates of electricity and inefficient telecommunication facilities, then I
am willing for an indefinite postponement. That is my view. But as I
said, my view will be opposed by others, and the best place to debate on this
is in economic policy-making.
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, the framework of our economic program
that has been approved by the Cabinet does provide for a two-year period
within
which liberalization can be looked into. But let me just point to several other
facts. One must take a look at the so-called unutilized capacity of 50
percent. If we are referring, for example, to the unutilized capacity in the
automotive industry, it is better that this is not revived because it is never
going to be competitive in this country. Television manufacturing and picture
tube manufacturing are likewise not in competitive scale. During the years of
martial law, we made the mistake of enacting an investments program based
on what they called measured capacity which was fitted to the local market.
So,
the scale at which these industries were approved was only fitted to the local
market.
Just one example is the case of picture tubes. The largest capacity in this
country is 700,000 tubes; actually, the average is 350,000. The economic
scale
is three million picture tubes a year. No matter what we do, despite efforts to
revive it, the industry is not going to be competitive unless we bring in
new equipment and modernize the bottleneck in the industry. But another
aspect to consider is this: perhaps, people should look into these companies
which
ask for protection. I was fortunate to have been a member of the private
sector task force in the past two months, and I would like to say that many of
these companies in fact, all of the companies we questioned as to whether
they were unprofitable during the last three years did not provide their
financial statements. We found out, for example, that the SPPP Production
which produces phosphate used for detergents had its most profitable year
in
history in 1984, and that it was operating at a 93-percent capacity. The SPPP
charged that they cannot compete with the dumping prices here, which were
provided by the foreign affiliate of the 40-percent foreign owner of that
company.
If we take a look at the tire industry, it is the same thing. It is profitable and
has never lost money. The glass industry has been under protection for
20 years and has been asking for another 10 years of protection because
they did not invest in economic and efficient facilities over the past two
years.
They bragged they could have invested, but somehow the money
disappeared. Now they want protection because they again want to have
profits and savings out
of the consumers money in order to put up this new facility that will enable
them to be competitive. This company is owned by a crony.
We can go on and on on this question of protectionism and nationalism, but I
would like to make one last point. Mention was made that this plan is
dictated
by the World Bank and the IMF. That is not true. The plan was formulated by
Filipinos. As a matter of fact, it is a complete framework to which IMF objects
because part of that framework is selective repudiation of foreign debt.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: I think there should be a good number of such cases where
companies continue to invoke protection and probably lie to the government.
A good
number of these are multinationals. But I think that is for the government to
deal with, especially when they tell lies to government agencies. But I think
what I would like to be able to foresee is precisely that awkward transition.
When we have so much overcapacity in our industry, so many thousands are
being laid off and then we get hit with import liberalization. But I also agree
that within the framework of import liberalization, certain cautionary

steps can be taken so that there is intelligent damage control for those
industries already existing.
But I want to project the future. Commissioner Villegas said that we ought
not to be discussing economic policy in the Constitutional Commission and
should
probably leave this to the future Congress. But is not the setting of strategic
visions for the country, including in the economic policy field, part of
the business of writing a constitution?
MR. VILLEGAS: The strategic objectives, like products and services, should be
for Filipinos. We should not have undue foreign control, of course. But how
to do it, whether or not to permit foreigners to go into textile or into car
manufacturing or into natural resources, are the issues that would clutter a
constitution. Definitely, there are strategic directives, like it being national,
independent and self-reliant. Obviously they would be motherhood
statements but is not the Constitution a listing of motherhood statements?
MR. OPLE: Yes, umbrella statements which do not have to be motherhood
statements or virginity statements.
MR. OPLE: And within that context, would it not be superfluous in this draft
Constitution to lay out a kind of strategic vision for industrialization?
After all the world consists of the rich industrialized countries and the poor
nonindustrialized countries.
MR. VILLEGAS: No. In fact, I encourage any amendment that would
incorporate that word. I just reserve the right to make sure that it does not
lead to some
of those horror stories that I enumerated.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Vice-President, we are not in the period of amendments, but in
order to test the intent of the Committee in connection with Commissioner
Villegas very illuminating presentation, would the Committee, of which I am
a member, entertain a new section, at the proper time, that will read
something like this: THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH POLICIES THAT PROMOTE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIALIZATION BASED ON A SOUND FOUNDATION OF
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
AGRARIAN REFORM CONSISTING OF INDUSTRIES THAT OPTIMIZE THE USE OF
INDIGENOUS RESOURCES AND ARE FULLY COMPETITIVE AND THE STATE MAY
AID BASIC INDUSTRIES BUT
THEY SHALL STAND ON THEIR OWN ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE. Would a
commitment to industrialization of this tenor which I consider very
constructive and
responsible and set in parameters that take account the major thrust of the
Committees proposals be acceptable?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Does Commissioner Villegas think this can find a place at the
proper time?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. My tentative reaction is that the tenor of the proposal is
acceptable. My immediate reaction is to clarify what the Gentleman means
by
national industrialization, because we know very well that some people use
national to mean nationalized.
MR. OPLE: National industrialization here is used in the generic sense.
MR. VILLEGAS: Is it Filipino-oriented?
MR. OPLE: Yes. It is national industrialization in the sense that when we do
attain industrialization, it will be seen that we did not discriminate against
any part of the country, whether in terms of locating physical plants or in
providing jobs or benefits or distributing the benefits flowing out of it. It
is in that sense that national is used here.
MR. VILLEGAS: I said the proposal looks acceptable. We just have to make
sure that each word is well explained.
MR. OPLE: I am glad that the Committee agrees that we should set forth
some strategic visions for the future in terms of our economic aspirations as
a
nation. These are not attempts to make laws but to set visions. I understand
from the Floor Leader that there will be a caucus.
MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: If that is correct, I thank him for nagging me about a caucus, so
that I can leave the other matters I had hoped to present to the Committee
in
that forum.
We already have a copy of the Gentlemans series of amendments and this

will be definitely studied by the Committee.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Garcia has reserved his right to speak before we
go into a caucus. I ask that Commissioner Garcia be recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
First of all, I feel it is unfortunate that there has been a hardening of positions
this morning. If there is really a difference of ideas, I submit that
we must try to identify these differences and try to work together so that we
can hammer out what could be the consensus of this body regarding our
plans
for economic recovery. In fact it was my proposal yesterday that we come
together in a caucus so we can discuss these differences and find out where
we
stand on very vital issues.
The members of the Committee requested me to formulate a very brief
statement as to an alternative vision. This is what I have done, and during
the caucus
I hope to give each member a copy. It is only two pages. I wish to put it on
record that this alternative vision takes into account the actual conditions
of the country and grapples with the reality so as to forge ahead. It is not a
perfect answer; it is definitely imperfect but it is an attempt.
Therefore, I object to some of the statements of Commissioner Villegas who
has-used labels during the discussions this morning. It is unfortunate
because
if we approach it in that way, it probably closes our mind to some of the
ideas that we can listen to. And so, I will read the piece that I have been
asked
to draft.
It is a framework of an economic alternative. There are no ready-made
models of ideal societies. The task of forging alternatives for our nation and
our
people falls on the shoulders of all Filipinos who search for justice, freedom
and dignity. In this effort, we propose here, for the purposes of
discussion, our vision of an alternative future, describing particularly the
outlines of its economic structure. The alternative society we want must have
an economy which embodies the following three central objectives:
1. Self-reliant development of the nations productive forces geared to satisfy
the needs of our people;
2. Filipino control of the economy; and
3. Economic democracy towards social equity.
I will very briefly explain each point.
1. Self-reliant development of productive forces Two processes are crucial
in the building of a genuinely self-reliant national economy: agrarian reform
and development on the one hand, which we worked at in the Article on
Social Justice, and nationalist industrialization on the other. The former
provides
for the freeing of productive forces locked up in antiquated patterns of feudal
land ownership and, as explained earlier on the floor, sets the stage for
the more rational, efficient and equitable exploitation of the nations
agricultural resources. In this process, the State extends necessary technical,
financial and other support services to farmers; promotes the shift from
emphasis on production for exports to the primacy of production for local
basic
needs; and provides for greater linkage between the agricultural and
industrial sectors, encouraging, among others, the local processing of
agricultural
products.
Nationalist industrialization builds on the surplus generated in the
agricultural sector, provides inputs to further enhance agricultural production
and
absorbs the work force released from the latter. The process involves the
promotion of an indigenous, scientific, technological and entrepreneurial
base
that will harness the full productive capacities of our people and be capable
of producing basic goods and services for the majority of our population. By
this, the following are implied: greater reliance on local resources as inputs
for our production needs; measures to protect our industries from undue
competition from foreign enterprises and imported products; a de-emphasis
on export-oriented production towards prior production for local consumption
needs; and, finally, the promotion of backward linkages in our industrial
sector, meaning, the establishment of capital goods industries that will
further
enhance our productive capacities.
2. Filipino control of our economy The principle of economic sovereignty

must underlie all efforts towards self-reliance and the full development of our
nations productive forces. This means, first of all, that the entry of foreign
capital, technology and business enterprises into the national economy
shall be effectively regulated to insure the protection of the interest of our
people.
Secondly, it means resistance to dictation imposed by the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank with regard to the conditions of the
repayment of
our external debt in order to insure that the terms are not contrary to our
development objectives.
I think the phrase selective repudiation has been mentioned by
Commissioner Monsod.
Thirdly, it involves the nationalization of specific vital industries and the
reservation to Filipino capital of certain privileged areas of investment.
3. Economic democracy towards social equity. Economic democracy
means the democratization of the ownership of the means and processes of
production;
popular participation in the control and management of their use and the
equitable distribution of their fruits and increments. Inasmuch as economic
sovereignty insures that Filipino interests are served, economic democracy
guarantees that the interest of all Filipinos, beginning with the
underprivileged and disadvantaged, is protected. Economic democracy
means the promotion of different and preferably more egalitarian and
democratic forms
of economic organizations and property ownership from corporate and
private to state, mixed, cooperative and social enterprise what we
discussed
yesterday as a mixed economy.
It also means the direct involvement of all sectors of society in the
formulation and implementation of national development programs initiated
by the
central government. Thus, the importance also of central planning. I realize
that these are imperfect ideas; in fact, I believe that all of us will be
writing, no matter how hard we try, an imperfect Constitution. I also realize
that we have differences of ideas, but in this very critical manner, this
will affect, as you said, generations to come and that is why it is important
for us to really thresh out and understand where we differ and where we
agree. Hopefully, we will respect the differences and rejoice in the points of
convergence. And this is what I hope we can accomplish during the caucus.
This is a modest contribution; I know there are others who may have other
ideas and we should welcome this.
I would like to thank the Chair for being very kind in providing me these few
minutes.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, a member of the Committee would like to
make a response. I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I am a member of the Committee but I would like to say a few words in
relation to what may be a change in the committee report arising from the
approval of
the Article on Social Justice and the submission of a report on the Declaration
of Principles.
In the deliberations of the Committee, there was originally the idea of
describing the economy as mixed in the way that we mentioned yesterday,
and in
order to recognize the complementarity of efforts of the private sector
individuals, cause-oriented groups, civic organizations and other private
organizations and not necessarily individual big businessmen. However, in
the Article on Social Justice as well as in the Article on Declaration of
Principles and State Policies heavy demands would be made on the State. If
we do not underscore the reciprocal relationship of the State and the private
sector we may not be able to provide the adequate and appropriate
mechanism for the expected response to the social justice provisions, as well
as those in
the Declaration of Principles.
At this point, I must say that I am impressed by the brief discourse of the
Committee Chairman, although I must hasten to add that for all its brevity, it
caricatures the contours of the economic systems that are in existence
worldwide. That is expected from such a brief discourse but it glosses over
the
adaptations that have been made by various economies, especially those
that have chosen a more autonomous path of development, not necessarily
according to
the classical models of capitalism or socialism.
My view is to be more historically specific, as enunciated partly by
Commissioner Garcia, that we must be able to examine the historical
conditions that
have brought us to where we are now and make the necessary adjustments.
We must be able to examine carefully the changing character of the social
structure
and the appropriate partnership between the private sector and the State or
government. I do not think that privatization, in the way that it has been
described as if it were a matter of either or, will be sufficient to respond to
the provisions in the various articles that I have already mentioned. I
am saying, therefore, that there is a need to revise in massive terms many of
the provisions so that some internal consistency will be arrived at, and I
hope to be able to make some contribution in the caucus towards the
attainment of this kind of internal consistency that is demanded by the
seeming
contradictory articles that have so far been submitted.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized for the clarifying
question.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President and members of the Committee: First of all,
I would like to preface my submission by saying that when I do express my
opinions, it is an expression not only mine but of the people who would like
to speak through us. I have always maintained that the dialogue with the
people is a continuing process; that it is not only after we have gone through
a series of public hearings that we close the doors to a continuing kind of
representation. So, when I bring forth some opinions, it is not only mine but
that of the people who would like their voices also heard through this humble
Representation. When I said this, it was with the apprehension that the
Constitution we are making, particularly on this provision on national
economy,
might not truly be reflective of the aspirations, the needs and the interests of
these particular sectors who will be affected by what we finally write.
That is why when we finally amend and approve these provisions, we hope
that we shall have really given the full realm of discussions, not only among
ourselves but among the people who want to be heard. I made that earlier
presentation of the peoples position not to disparage the points of view or
the
perspectives of the members of the Committee who felt slighted because I
said something about the people who had this pro-Filipino protection and
pro-national industrialization set forth in a different kind of tone. But it was
not mine personally; I was only expressing a point of view that was
relayed to us during a breakfast forum where we just came from, and that is
why I was speaking with the kind of sentiment they wanted the body to hear.
That is why I moved for that kind of opportunity for tomorrow because I did
not want this discussion to end up just today without the benefit of a public
representation. But, anyway, what they would like to ask is: How does this
Article on National Economy and Patrimony really assure the protection of
the
Filipino interest? They said that we have publicly assured them that the
Constitution is going to be pro-people, pro-God and pro-Filipino. And they felt
that it is in this Article where we can truly express this pro-Filipino interest.
So, I would like now the Committee to tell me in laymans terms how I can
tell a worker, a peasant, a small businessman or even the big Filipino
businessmen how this particular Article will protect their interest, without
having to refer to Sections 13, 14, 15 or all the sections. What are these
fundamental principles that are carried here that will assure them that we
have the interest of the Filipinos first and foremost when we shall be
approving
this particular Article? I would want to relay this again in order to relieve their
apprehension that it might not be for their interest. I think that is
the kind of assurance we must give them because they are going to be the
ones who will ratify or reject this particular Constitution and it might be this
particular Article which they feel will not be serving their interest. That is how
I would like to be assured in a few non-technocratic economic terms.
MR. VILLEGAS: Mr. Vice-President, first of all, against whom do we protect the
interest of the Filipino people? That is the first question. And who may
abuse the interest of the Filipino people? It could be certain individuals who
may misuse natural resources and may expropriate natural resources for
their
own selfish use. So what is the provision that will protect that? It is the
provision on the adherence to the regalian doctrine the idea that the State
is there to protect the interest of Filipinos, and is the one that owns all the
natural resources and will have a lot of controls in the way those natural
resources are going to be used and exploited. As suggested by
Commissioner Bennagen, the cultural minorities, in one specific provision
here, will be able
to hold ancestral lands and have priorities to specific use of the lands. So
that would be one interest that can be protected. Second, the people should
be
protected against the selfish foreigners who may come here to exploit in
contrast with the other foreigners who are not selfish and who may be here
to help
out against those who are exploitative. There are provisions that will limit
their control of Filipino enterprises, depending on what the whole
Commission
will finally decide.
What about protection in general? We are assuring the fullest liberty for
every single Filipino to undertake economic enterprises that would lead to
their
livelihood, so there will be no interference from the State as regards their
putting up small and medium-scale enterprises, their going into small farms
and their getting together as cooperatives in order to help one another.
These are probably the best guarantees for the full flowering of liberty in the
economic field without the oppressive Big Brother trying to dictate what
economic activities we should enter into.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, the last interpellator is Commissioner Tadeo. I
ask that he be recognized.
MR. TADEO: Mr. Vice-President, gusto ko lang pong ipaalam ang aking
posisyon bilang Vice-Chairman ng Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.
Totoong napakaselan para sa isang magbubukid na ang mga kasama niyay
hindi lamang economist kung hindi lawyer-economist pa. Kaya makikita
ninyo iyong
kahirapan sa deliberation pa lamang. Sa simula pa lamang ng deliberation ay
ipinasok ko na ang national industrialization at iyan ay alam ng bumubuo
ng
Committee. Dito sa Article on Social Justice, ipinasok ko rin ang national
industrialization. Ibig kong ang aking magiging posisyon ay nababatay
mismo sa
national situationer na tinalakay ng anak ng kagalanggalang nating VicePresident, si Alexander Padilla. Ito ay natutunan ko kay Alex nang talakayin
niya
sa isang symposium ng promotion ng Church Peoples Rights and Response
ang kanyang posisyon tungkol dito sa ating national economy and patrimony.
Sinabi ni
Mr. Padilla na sa Article on National Economy and Patrimony na Filipino ang

dapat na maging sole determinant o ang kauna-unahang principle, ngunit sa
paggamit ng private, kasama riyan ang foreigners. Nakatatakot ang
pagbanggit ng private, maaaring gamitin ang private, ngunit dapat
sabihing private
Filipino entrepreneurs, para maialis natin ang ating national economy and
patrimony sa kamay ng mga dayuhan. Dalawa ang kanyang sinabi: sole
determinant
ay Filipino. Pangalawa, pinakamahalaga raw na ang principal beneficiaries ay
ang Filipino.
Sa kamay ng Con-Com nakalagay ngayon ang kapakanan ng 55 milyong
mamamayang Pilipino. Ano ang sinabi niya? Sang-ayon sa record ng Central
Bank noong 1972
hanggang 1981, ang kabuuan ng ating imports ay $44 billion; ang kabuuan
ng ating exports ay $33 billion lugi tayo ng $11 billion sa isang tinatawag
nating kolonyal na kalakalan, na tayoy bilang tagapagluwas lamang ng hilaw
na sangkap at tagabili ng kanilang mga yaring produkto. Sang-ayon sa
record ng
1983, $7.48 billion ang kabuuan ng imports. Ang kabuuang exports ay $5
billion lugi tayo ng $2.48 billion, bunga ng kolonyal na kalakalang
tagapagluwas
lamang tayo ng hilaw na sangkap at tagabili ng mga yaring produkto nila. Sa
ganitong kalagayan makikita natin ang pangangailangan sa national
industrialization, ngunit ibig ko lamang sagutin ang Chairman ng Committee
on the National Economy and Patrimony nang sinabi niyang, We need
foreign
investments. Lubos akong nasasaktan sapagkat narito ang kasalukuyang
kalagayan. Sa bawat dolyar na ipinapasok ng dayuhan sa Pilipinas sang-ayon
kay
Alexander Padilla, $25 ang kanilang hinihiram sa atin. Ano ang sabi ni IBON?
Sa bawat P25 na pinamuhunan ng mga dayuhang ito, P100 naman ang
inuutang sa
atin. They decapitalize our economy.
Tungkol naman sa repatriation, ano ang sinasabi ni Alexander Padilla, ng
CEPO at ng Bantigue Study? Sa bawat dolyar na ipinapasok nila, ang
inilalabas nila
ay $3.95. Sang-ayon sa Central Bank, sa bawat ipinapasok na dolyar ng mga
dayuhan dito, ang inilalabas nila ay $3.58. Sang-ayon kay Hilarion Henares,
sa
isang dolyar na ipinapasok nila, $5.66 ang inilalabas. They decapitalize our
economy, pagkatapos sasabihin nila na maliwanag ang record ng U.S. Bank
of
America. Wala silang ipinasok na kapital sa Pilipinas. Ang nag-invest diyan,
ang nagdeposito riyan ay mga Pilipino. Seventy-five to 85 percent ang

pinauutang ng Bank of America sa mga dayuhan, pero kapital na Pilipino.
Ilan lamang iyan sa mga halimbawa para makita ninyong hindi natin
kailangan ang kapital nila. At sinasabi ng aking kasama at kaibigang
Chairman ng
Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony na kailangan ang foreign
investment dahil indispensable daw ang gatas. Alam ba ng kasamang
Chairman na ang
ating niyog mula sa 44 to 45 U.S. cents per pound ay bumagsak ng 17
percent? Kayat bagsak na ang coconut industry. At alam ba natin na sa
kanayunan, 78
percent ay malnourished ang ibig sabihin ng malnourished, may
poverty; ang ibig sabihin ng malnourished, kamatayan. Sabi nga ni Doctor
Edelino de la
Paz, sa bawat sampung batang isinisilang, walo ang namamatay bunga ng
malnutrition. At 90 percent ng ating gatas ay inaangkat natin sa labas ng
bansa,
bagamat ang ating coconut ay napakayaman sa protina 20 to 21 percent,
kamukha ng gatas na inaangkat natin sa labas ng bansa. Ngunit hindi natin
dinedevelop ito; iniaasa nating maging hilaw na sangkap.
Ang metal na binibili ng Hapon sa atin na P10 isang kilo, kapag ibinalik sa
atin, transistor at telebisyon na. Kailangan ko pa bang banggitin sa inyong
economists ang backward integration at ang forward integration?
Napakasakit ang ginagawa sa atin. Noong dati ay nagpapalahi tayo ng
manok sa Nueva Ecija;
pangunahin ang Nueva Ecija sa mga mag-iitlog sa buong Pilipinas. Pero nang
sabihin ng mga technocrats nating higit pang mabuti kung umangkat tayo ng
mga
breeding stocks, 100 percent perpetually dependent ang Pilipinas sa manok,
sa baboy at sa baka hindi na tayo nagpapalahi sa Pilipinas. Ano ang
sinasabi
ng ating Director ng Animal Science sa UP Los Banos? Kapag inangkat natin
ang breeding stock, aangkatin rin natin ang technology kung paano sila
palalakihin. Kaya 85 percent ng ating itlog ay inaangkat sa labas ng bansa.
Ito ang isang kalagayang sinasabi ng anak ng kagalanggalang nating
Vice-President Ambrosio Padilla.
Sinasabi namin na ang pag-unlad ay mayroong tatlong kailangan: genuine
agrarian reform, national industrialization at isang nasyonalistang
democratic
government. Hindi yung gobyerno noong nakaraan. Tinawag ito ng ating
kagalanggalang na anak ng ating Vice-President na democratic coalition
government;
hindi iyong pamahalaang hindi mapagkalinga sa mga dukha. Iyon ang ibig
naming sabihing perspective ng state capitalism na ang istratehikong mga

industriya ay hahawakan ng pamahalaan at ang hahawakan lamang ng mga
pribadoy iyong mga industriyang hindi makakaapekto sa interes o public
welfare ng
sambayanang Pilipino; hindi iyong pamahalaang kamukha noong nakaraan.
Ang sinasabi namin ay isang nasyonalistang democratic government na
hahawak ng mga
istratehikong nahawakan ng estado hindi tumataas ang bilihin, hindi
tumataas ang koryente, hindi tumataas ang pamasahe, walang tumataas sa
loob ng 30 to
50 years. Ayaw namin ang economic concentration of power sa kamay ng
iilan lamang: Kaya ang gusto namin, kinakailangan nating mag-brainstorm at
katayin
natin ang Article on the National Economy and Patrimony sapagkat dito
mismo nakaatang ang buhay ng nagugutom na sambayanan. Seventy-three
percent of rural
households have incomes below the poverty line.
Nasa atin ang kayamanan: nakaupo tayo sa bundok na ginto,
pinakamayaman ang Pilipinas sa buong Asya at sa buong mundo, subalit
ginawa lang tayong
kasangkapan ng mga dayuhan. Babasahin ko sa inyo ang kahulugan ng
economic underdevelopment:
Economic underdevelopment is a peoples state of incapacity to produce
their means of production the machines, the tools that will enable them to
produce
goods and to render services. The tools that produce needle and scissors; the
machines that produce engines; the mills that produce textiles; the
equipment
that produce typewriters and xerox machines.
Ano ang sinasabi ni Senator Diokno? Ninety-five percent ng ating essential
commodities ay inaangkat natin sa labas ng bansa. Ni hindi tayo
makagagawa ng
pako, ng palito, ni anumang bagay na hindi natin aangkatin ang makina sa
labas ng bansa. What essentially distinguishes a developed nation from an
underdeveloped nation is that the former manufactures the means of
production while the latter does not. And because the latter does not, its
capacity to
generate wealth as well as employment is severely constricted.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: I made a reservation yesterday, Mr. Vice-President, to make further
statements or to ask questions because I expected to be given certain
papers
which I think are relevant to the discussion of the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony. But the information that I received is just a set of
preliminary findings. This has to do with the economic and technical
assistance program between the United States and the Philippine
government. I think
this is the so-called Quirino-Foster Agreement or Memorandum of
Agreement, which I was told has been the basis of U.S. Government
assistance to the
Philippines.
I said that this is just preliminary information. On the basis of the available
information that I have, this agreement is one-sided in so many provisions
in favor of the United States, particularly the United States Agency for
International Development. Many provisions are said to be onerous to the
point of
being exploitative. But in connection with this, I would like to go deeper into
this but at the moment, I would like to find out if the Committee is
amenable to accepting some kind of an amendment that will authorize or
direct the government to review existing multilateral or bilateral economic
and
technical agreements and programs with foreign governments with a view to
doing away with those which imposed onerous conditions on the Philippine
Government supposedly to obtain foreign assistance and also to retain
others which actually redound to the benefit of the country. Would such an
amendment
fit into the Article on National Economy and Patrimony?
MR. VILLEGAS: The President, through the NEDA, has the responsibility of
safeguarding the economic interests of the nation. If the Gentleman thinks
that he
would like to expand that specific reference to the NEDA and its role,
including this type of watchdog task, I think we will entertain a specific
amendment.
MR. FOZ: I have drafted a proposed amendment which I would like to take up
with the Committee at the proper time.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we suspend the session so we can
go into a caucus until two-thirty this afternoon.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 11:57 a.m.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I call on the Chairman of the Committee on the
National Economy and Patrimony and the members to be seated at the front
for
further interpellation.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas and the members of the
Committee are requested for the continuation of interpellations on the Article
on National
Economy and Patrimony.
Mr. Floor Leader, is there any registered interpellator?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, there are no more registered interpellators,
but I would like to ask the Commissioners if they would like to interpellate
because that was the request of those who had a different view from that of
the Committee.
I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized to interpellate.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I am a member of the Committee and I asked some questions for clarification
yesterday, but I would like to ask some more comments from the Chairman
of the
Committee and the members with regard to some points.
For example, with regard to a vision for the economic development of our
country, Commissioner Garcia presented three major points, and maybe we
could use
these as a basis for further discussion. The Commissioner stated that the
economy must embody the following three central objectives: First, a selfreliant
development of the nations productive forces geared to satisfy the needs of
our people; second, Filipino control of the economy; and third, economic
democracy towards social equity. The first statement is very clear a selfreliant development of the nations productive forces geared to satisfy the
needs of our people. This is elucidated in the first section. What I would like
to concentrate on is the second point Filipino control of the economy.
What specific provisions would assure for such, if this is embodied in the
proposed Article?
MR. VILLEGAS: All the provisions that limit the participation of foreigners, for
example, to 40 percent in natural resources, according to the present
committee report, to only one-third in public utilities, and in other areas
where the Congress can decide to limit the ownership to 100 percent Filipino
there is that provision in one of the sections which give Congress the power
to decide on investment areas. If the Gentleman will recall, we even removed
the word traditional in order to give greater leeway to Congress to decide
on the areas to be Filipinized. Then definitely on land use, Filipinos have
priority and foreigners have tremendous limitations in the way they can take
advantage of agricultural lands.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Vice-President, if I may also add. There are also present
laws that further regulate foreign ownership. The Board of Investments, for
example, regulates any investment beyond 30 percent for a foreigner;
foreigners cannot come in beyond 30 percent without the explicit permission
and
approval of the Board of Investments; retail trade is reserved by law to 100percent Filipino; finance companies must observe the 70-30 setup, and so
on.
We really have so many laws requiring the majority control to be in the hands
of Filipinos, quite apart from what we have stated in the Constitution. The
Investment Code has further regulations with regard to majority Filipino
equity. It is relaxed only in the case of pioneer and preferred, in those cases,
the foreigner starts to disinvest after the eleventh year until he becomes the
minority. All of these must be taken into account.
MR. GASCON: With regard to Section 9, I asked some questions on it
yesterday, but I would like to be further clarified. Section 9 reads:
The Congress shall reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
interest is owned by such citizens or such higher percentage as Congress
may prescribe, certain areas of investments when the national interest so
dictates.
Are there areas of investment significant to our development efforts that
only foreigners can provide?
MR. VILLEGAS: Does the Gentleman mean provide in terms of capital or

technology?
MR. GASCON: As far as investment is concerned in developing certain priority
areas for our economic development, are there areas where there is much
need
for foreign investments?
MR. VILLEGAS: During the public hearings, we heard people from the mining
and oil exploration industries, who presented a very strong case, that foreign
investment is actually indispensable because there is no risk capital available
in the Philippines. If the Gentleman will remember, the figure cited over
the last ten years is that P800 million literally went down the drain in oil
exploration and up to now, no oil has been found, and all that money was
foreign money. These people asked a rhetorical question: Can you imagine if
that money belonged to Filipinos?
MR. GASCON: I would like to read a commentary and elicit some reaction.
Both India and Brazil restrict foreign investment in computer hardware. India
also restricts foreign investment in nuclear technology, motorcycle
manufacture and steel production, among others. The results have been
encouraging. Their products may not be as superior in quality as what the
Europeans
and North Americans can produce, but they are not dependent on
international market forces to obtain these commodities. Currency
devaluations need not
affect them as painfully as they do to us, Filipinos, because the Brazilians and
Indians produce basic commodities. Moreover, by restricting even the entry
of technical personnel, Brazil and India have produced a core of qualified
local scientists and technicians, and have thus created the beginnings of a
scientific culture in their countries. Thus, in any plan for further industrial
expansion, they have the facilities and personnel to train future
technicians and need not rely on foreign experts who would need to be
paid in foreign exchange.
Incidentally a recent American-broadcasting corporation news report argued
that South Africa could conveniently resist economic sanctions. Why?
Because of
uncertainty of foreign support. The South Africans have developed their own
coal base, energy industry, food production, and computer industry for the
past
15 years. Again, power could have been cheaper had they decided to import
petroleum, and food and computers would be cheaper if they just allowed
importations of foreign investments. But for them, autonomy was important.
Indeed, by being self-reliant, they just might be able to resist foreign

pressure.
Compare their case with that of ours. We cannot get our economic recovery
program started because we need foreign investments and loans, and import
liberalization is imposed on us to obtain standby IMF loans. To think that we
do not even practice apartheid. What does the Committee think of this
concept
of giving certain restrictions on certain areas of the economy so that we can
be more self-reliant? Is that a possibility?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is very much within the spirit of Section 9, and that is an
issue that will be studied by an investment board and by Congress. That is
very much within the possibility of the present Constitution.
MR. GASCON: Are foreign investors the only or major source of finance,
technical expertise and managerial talent?
MR. VILLEGAS: They are a supplementary source.
MR. GASCON: What are other sources for domestic market?
MR. VILLEGAS: Domestic sources, of course.
MR. MONSOD: There are generally considered five sources of investments,
domestic savings of investment: domestic savings, foreign debt, foreign
investments, multilateral or bilateral grants and government expenditures.
These are the five major sources or categories of investment.
MR. GASCON: Is it possible to tap, let us say, Filipino nationals abroad as a
major source of financial technical expertise for developing our economy?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely. In fact, that is the plan of a number of groups to
launch what they call a Philippine Fund addressed to the more than one
million Filipinos in the United States and other foreigners who sympathize
with the Philippines.
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, a good point that the Gentleman raised is
that if there are only a limited number of sources, then we have to take a
look
at the totality of our loss.
A large number of Filipinos abroad who have acquired American citizenship,
for example, have been making representations that they should be given
the
opportunity to invest in this country, in the country of their birth, because
they are interested in its future. We have received communications from

them,
if they can be allowed to be given certain rights as to ownership of property.
In our report because it was a Committee decision, the limit, for example, of
residential land that they may own is 1,000 square meters. But they are
asking if we can increase the limit to give them a chance to invest. They are
also asking if their investment can be considered Filipino investments
considering that they are former citizens, natural-born citizens who are no
longer citizens. These are ways to attract them and we have to balance the
needs of the economy with our thinking on these restrictions. We cannot say
we do not need investment. But while we want to limit certain forms of
investment, we might end up limiting all and shutting ourselves out from
investment.
If we look at the enumeration, it seems to me that one of the main areas we
should now induce is domestic savings. This is why this whole Article is
based
on the economic philosophy that private initiative should be encouraged
because the other sources are really less desirable sources foreign debt,
foreign
investment, grants or doleouts from others, and government expenditures.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I just add something? I was informed by two real estate
businessmen that the world trade mission was created to invite Filipinos
abroad
to invest in the Philippines. So, these Filipinos who acquired foreign
citizenship but who are still desirous to invest in the Philippines will be
another
source of funding.
MR. GASCON: With regard to investments, does the Philippines have a
clearcut policy on foreign investments? Are there restrictions and rules on it?
There was a comment made by Charles Lindsay and Ernesto Valencia in their
article, Foreign Direct Investment in the Philippines, that our rules on
foreign investments are so complicated and full of exceptions that
concededly any foreign investment can be justified in our country. Is that the
case? If
this is so, is it not about time that the Constitution establish clear nonnegotiable conditions for foreign investments? If there are none, I would like
to be clarified since I am not a student of economics.
MR. VILLEGAS: As far as I know, there are very specific guidelines about
foreign investments promulgated by such agencies as the Board of
Investments
(BOI). There is even the Foreign Investment Code passed by Congress. The
lawyers may be able to say more about the implementation.
MR. GASCON: I would like to be clarified particularly on the conditions to
foreign investments, if there are any?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: There are, in fact, complaints that the conditions are too rigid
and, indeed, too complicated rather than that there are plenty of loopholes.
Let us begin with what is called permissible investments. Beyond 30
percent in this category, you have to go to the Board of Investments for
permission
to invest. The Board of Investments has to decide whether that particular
permissible investment tends to monopolize or is contrary to any of our
announced
policies or laws, or whether it will enter a field that is already fully exploited
by Filipinos. So there are already three safeguards.
For other types of investments, Book I of the Investment Code applies. This is
where there is the so-called pioneer and nonpioneer, preferred and
nonpreferred investments. The rules are very specific again as to what is
classified as pioneer investments. There is an IPP (Investment Priority Plan)
issued by NEDA every year which determines what particular industries are
considered pioneer and which particular industries are under preferred.
There are
also incentives given the investor under each category. As I say, if it is a
pioneer investment, initially it can be owned 100 percent by a foreigner. But
after the eleventh year, the foreign investment starts to divest so that by the
twentieth or, at the latest, the twenty-fifth year, he must become a
minority he will own only 40 percent. The same thing happens with regard
to preferred investments. The difference between preferred and pioneer
investments lies in what the preferred investment gets by way of incentives.
That is practically the whole package. In the Export Processing Zone, for
example, where 100-percent foreign ownership is allowed, the only activity
undertaken is of processing raw or semi-raw materials for export. More or
less,
those are the total investment packages. I think that when they say one is
able to justify any foreign investment under these laws, it is not correct. On
the contrary, my own experience is that a great many investment laws are
so rigid that, in fact, desirable investments are disallowed.
MR. GASCON: With regard to the EPZA, are there steps being taken towards
greater Filipinization since the Gentleman said that at this point in time it is
100-percent foreign-owned?
MR. ROMULO: No, because it is meant to precisely attract foreign processors
to come in. Filipinos can also invest in the Export Processing Zone, but it is
not meant primarily for Filipinos. The idea is precisely to attract foreign
processing firms and, therefore, create jobs for Filipinos.
MR. GASCON: Has such a program, in the past years, been successful or
beneficial to the economy?
MR. ROMULO: I think it has not been as successful as expected because it
was not properly conceived and implemented. They now run into competition
against
other foreign processing zones which are far more efficient and attractive. In
fact, I would say that many of the firms in EPZA are closing down.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just to present economic statistics in the ASEAN, I think the
statement the Gentleman quoted is contradicted by the evidence that
over the
last 10 years foreign investments in the Philippines has grown very, very
slowly. Actually, over the last three years, foreign investments have been
declining in contrast with Malaysia and Indonesia, not to mention Singapore.
So the statement that it is easy to invest in the Philippines is contradicted
by the facts.
MR. GASCON: Line 22 of Section 3 states:
. . . The Congress may by law allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.
Hypothetically, does this provision suggest that priority in the utilization of
natural resources shall be granted to large establishments? Does the phrase
may by law allow small-scale utilization mean that if it does not allow by
law, that priority is given to large establishments?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, I do not think the implication is there.
MR. GASCON: Does the provision suggest that since Congress may allow
cooperative fish farming by law, cooperatives in aquaculture are not to be
given
primary consideration?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, I do not think it means that. This was just an attempt to
operationalize the preferential option for the underprivileged, to make
special
mention of it, because historically natural resources in this country have
been exploited by capital-extensive groups.
MR. GASCON: With regard to the basic objectives of equity and efficiency,
economic efficiency is defined as the utilization of the minimum necessary
amount
of resources to attain a desired outcome. Clearly, equity is not antagonistic
to this notion. In fact, equity may be a major cause of demoralization among
laborers and the poor, resulting in inefficiency. Efforts towards greater equity
can, in fact, inspire greater productivity on the part of labor and the
poor when they realize that their efforts are being rewarded on a level at par
with that of others in society, knowing that the segment of society remains
idle and others are in luxury because of the inequitable distribution of wealth
and access to opportunities.
Are equity and efficiency necessarily divorced or do they go together, just for
purposes of discussion?
MR. VILLEGAS: In fact, they should go together in this first section of our
Article. If the Gentleman will notice, the first goal mentioned is equity.
MR. GASCON: In the Gentlemans opinion, what are the steps that we should
take towards achieving efficiency in our economy? Would it probably be
providing
for greater equity?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GASCON: So, what should be the primary goal in the beginning?
MR. VILLEGAS: In the Article on Social Justice, I think we have a lot of very
clear-cut guidelines on how to make small farmers more productive through
land reform, for example.
MR. GASCON: I thank the honorable Chairman of the Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Vice-President, I have a very simple request to the Committee.
May all the others concerned and I be enlightened as to the exact meaning
of mixed economy?
MR. VILLEGAS: I will attempt an answer, and the other members of the
Committee can supplement my answer.
A mixed economy is an economy where economic activities are in the
hands of private individuals, whether they be single proprietorships,
partnerships,
corporations, cooperatives, without any prejudice to the possibility of the
state also operating economic enterprises that are considered vital for the
common good. So, this has to do with the way economic enterprises are
owned and operated. A mixed economy is one that admits of both
possibilities
economic enterprises in the hands of private individuals and economic
enterprises in the hands of the state. As to which specific blend is chosen in
a very
particular period of a nations history will depend on circumstances. As
Commissioner Monsod was saying, government expenditures as a source of
investment
for establishing economic enterprises are extremely limited right now
because as we very well know, as we go through from one social justice
provision to
another, we need billions and billions to give health services, to even
subsidize the expropriations of land, et cetera. After the government tries to
implement the Article on Social Justice, the government will be bankrupt.
Therefore, we just have to leave the establishment of economic enterprises
to
private individuals.
MR. MONSOD: May I just add two principles that we thought would be very
useful in determining whether government should go into a particular
activity or
not. The first is that before government goes into activities that are not
purely government functions, it should first prove that it can do those
activities efficiently which are its appropriate functions. That is the first
principle. Until then it should not go into other activities. It must first
efficiently perform those that are appropriately government functions
garbage, police, customs, et cetera, before it goes into the production of,
say,
bicycles.
The second principle is that the government should not go into activities
which the private sector can do more efficiently. It may regulate such
activities, if these are monopolies; it has the power of regulation and police
power, if necessary. But it should not engage in activities that the private
sector can perform more efficiently.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to answer the question on what mixed
economy is in historical perspective. This arises from an understanding of
the classical
model of the development of economies from an alleged primitive communal
type that eventually develops into a slave type, then to a feudal type, then
to a
capitalist type, and socialist and so on. These are ideal types in the sense
that they are pure economic organizations or economic systems.
Unfortunately,
this is not the case in the real world. It is not the case that all economies
undergo this kind of evolution, particularly in the case of Third World
countries whose economies have already been distorted by all sorts of
historical experiences as well as by the current influences of all sorts of
economic
models. We are saying, therefore, that the development of economies, in
terms of these ideal types, is already foreclosed. This means that we cannot
develop as a pure capitalist type, nor can we develop as a pure socialist type
for a number of reasons. Even in the present Philippine economic context, we
have a full range of economic subsystems from subsistence economies that
characterize Negrito societies to a kind of communal organization as in some
cases
of the Lumad of Mindanao and the Cordilleras of Northern Luzon. These are
subsystems within the overall national economic system, in addition to all
those
economic systems that were discussed earlier both by Commissioner Monsod
and Commissioner Villegas.
In other words, in the real world of Philippine economy, there are various
ways of harnessing the resources of nature and human groupings to meet
the needs
of an evolving society. It is important that we examine the precise
interrelationships of all these economic subsystems within Philippine society,
and the
interrelationship of this total national economy with the rest of the world. At
present, it would be a mistake to speak of a pure economic system in the
Philippine context or in a tribal society or even in the case of advanced
capitalism or of socialism. It would be a mistake to think in terms of pure
types. This is why in the early stages of our deliberations in the Committee,
we argued that we would like to describe the Philippine economy as a mixed

economy. It is not pure capitalism, it is not a pure kind of economic system
whatsoever but a mixture of all these various economic subsystems.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that Commissioner Rosario
Braid be recognized for additional clarificatory questions?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will the Committee members enlighten me on some
questions I have raised in a general manner earlier. The first question is
whether some
of these provisions would allow for evolution towards South-South trade;
meaning, the development of mechanisms and procedures by which we
could encourage
trade between the Third World countries, starting perhaps with ASEAN. This
would, of course, permit the development of appropriate technology and
some
semblance of an appropriate import substitution policy. I am sure that this is
one step to a future direction.
MR. VILLEGAS: I think Commissioner Ople has a proposed amendment to
which Commissioner Rosario Braid may want to introduce some
amendments. In the
international field, it should be the responsibility of the State to help
industries attain access to technology, markets and finance as may be
applicable,
and to make common cause with other like-minded states that is where
the South-South trade comes in in negotiating better terms of trade for
developing
countries. Foreign investments are also determined to be necessary. So, this
could be an appropriate place where the Commissioners concern for SouthSouth
trade or relationships could be introduced.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID. On the matter of technology transfer, since we have
very weak provisions on technology transfer, are there ways by which a
provision
could strengthen existing policies on technology transfer? As we know from
available literature, all countries particularly Third World countries, have
suffered more from technology transfer agreements. They have become
more dependent. As a matter of fact, the costs of technology transfer are
tremendous.
UNCTAD has made estimates of costs of technology transfer compared with
the gains which show that developing countries have not gained much.
MR. VILLEGAS: We will welcome an amendment. At the moment, we do not
have a phraseology in mind.
MR. MONSOD: Perhaps we might also add that we would like to see
provisions to that effect. The provision has to be harmonized with the
sentiments already
expressed in this body against foreign investments. You cannot have your
cake and eat it, too. We have to balance these different interests and we
must
also devote a large part of our own domestic resources. In many countries,
2.0 percent or more of the gross national product is appropriated for
research.
That is a political decision as well as a budget decision to put money in
appropriate technology and not just transfer technology from other
countries.
May I go back to another point which the Commissioner raised earlier about
like-minded states developing common interests for terms of trade? I think
we
have to be a little careful not to constitutionalize international cartelization.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Lastly, regarding multinationals, we have to live with
the reality that they are in our midst. They can accomplish many positive
things
but, at the same time, we are distressed that there are not enough
regulatory measures. We need measures that would ensure that the Filipinos
can bargain
from a position of strength as evidenced by the problems effected by Dole
and Del Monte plantations in the fruit industry.
In Malaysia, Kenya and Indonesia, multinational companies are regarded in a
more positive light because they have initiated such schemes as nucleus
estates
the Felda and Feltra. Our multinational corporations like Sime Darby or
San Miguel and other local corporations could help anchor small landholdings
by
providing the needed production input in partnership with government.
Can the Commissioner provide some more schemes in the scenario of how
we can live with the reality of the presence of multinationals and yet be able
to
develop survival schemes, develop ways by which partnership can be forged
with government, and so forth? In this way we can inform everyone that we
have
short-term tactics for survival. But we should be working towards the goals of
independence and sovereignty. In short, we have to face the reality now, and
work out a way by which we could meet the economic problems of the
country, yet keeping our primary goal in mind.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, I think that can also be inserted in the last phrase of the
amendment I referred to coming from Commissioner Ople: FOREIGN
INVESTMENTS
DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY TO THE COUNTRYS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT MAY BE WELCOMED ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF A NATIONAL POLICY OF
SELF-RELIANCE AND INDEPENDENCE. The Commissioner may also want to
introduce some refinements for her concepts to be incorporated.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized for
additional questions.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized for additional
interpellations.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President, I would like to have some clarification on
Section 2, starting on line 21 of page 1 to page 2, which states: subject
always, however, to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and
to intervene when the common good so demands.
My understanding of distributive justice is justice that would have
preferential option for the poor. This is what I understand when we talk about
the
common good that the common good would actually be to the most
number of people who are deprived and disadvantaged. So, I was wondering
why there is a
need to add the phrase to intervene when the common good so demands.
Is this not redundant to the term promoting distributive justice?
MR. VILLEGAS: There are positive ways of promoting the shift to justice,
which has nothing to do with intervening. There are specific cases when
intervention is necessary, and I think it precisely strengthens the power of
the State to come in and actually prejudice specific sectors to be able to
help the poor. If we will just say promote distributive justice, it is not strong
enough.
MS. QUESADA: So, actually, this is related to distributive justice and
common good here does not refer to any other.
MR. VILLEGAS: As the Commissioner said, it refers to the 70 percent of
Filipinos who are living below the poverty line.
MS. QUESADA: So, the Gentleman thinks that this has to be strengthened. It
has to be explicitly stated that we are intervening for the common good
because
we would lice distributive justice to be really implemented.
MR. MONSOD: May we just add that Section 2 must be read together with
Section 1 because Section 1 provides that priority be given to the welfare of
the
poor. This is a continuous idea in Sections 1 and 2 and in other sections of
the Article.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, thank you.
MR. BENNAGEN: For further clarification, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think this was also discussed rather briefly yesterday in
relation to the first sentence of Section 2. As formulated, it seems to be
highly
voluntaristic on the part of the private sector to contribute to the common
good, which is why we said that at certain points the Constitution mandates
the
State to intervene when there is need for distributive justice. In other words,
it does not leave the private sector alone to do what it wishes even at the
expense of distributive justice.
Through a review of the 1973 Constitution, I gather that Section 3 of this
Article actually covers Section 8 and Section 9, Article XIV of the 1973
Constitution; is that right?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.

MS. QUESADA: In relation to lines 6 and 7 which state: and other natural
resources shall not be alienated, I would like to find out the difference of
this particular phrase with that of the statement contained in Section 8 of the
1973 Constitution that all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, et
cetera belong to the State. Being a lay person, I would like to be clear on
whether there is any difference between the phrases belonging to the
State
and shall not be alienated.
MR. VILLEGAS: I am sorry. The Commissioner is still using an obsolete draft.
There was a correction. I think the Commissioner is using a draft where the
phrase other natural resources are owned by the State was omitted.
MS. QUESADA: I see; I am sorry.
MR. VILLEGAS: With the provision of agricultural lands. We are using now the
corrected copy, modified for bicameral.
MS. QUESADA: I am probably holding an old copy then.
MR. VILLEGAS: I would like to read it then. Section 3 of the corrected draft
states:
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, flora and
fauna and other natural resources are owned by the State.
That is the regalian doctrine. To continue: With the exception of agricultural
lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. So, one whole
line was skipped in the copy of the Commissioner.
MS. QUESADA: Another point of clarification is the phrase and utilization of
natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. In the 1973 Constitution, this was limited to citizens of the
Philippines; but it was removed and substituted by shall be under the full
control
and supervision of the State. Was the concept changed so that these
particular resources would be limited to citizens of the Philippines? Or would
these
resources only be under the full control and supervision of the State;
meaning, noncitizens would have access to these natural resources? Is that
the
understanding?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, Mr. Vice-President, if the Commissioner reads the next
sentence, it states:
Such activities may be directly undertaken by the State, or it may enter into
co-production, joint venture, production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens.
So, we are still limiting it only to Filipino citizens.
MS. QUESADA: I am glad to understand that then. On Section 7, may I know
why in this particular instance, on line 29, there was a specification on the
size
of property; that is, not to exceed an area of 1,000 square meters. In the
1973 Constitution, it was stated: as the Batasang Pambansa may provide.
What
was the rationale behind explicitating this in this particular provision?
MR. VILLEGAS: It was the majority opinion, although there were some people
who dissented, that we should even be more restrictive. However, we would
welcome any amendment to going back to the 1973 version.
MS. QUESADA: I just want to find out if this is an improvement instead of a
retrogression.
MR. VILLEGAS: It depends on the point of view. Some people think it is an
improvement; others, a retrogression.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I give my comments?
MR. SARMIENTO: The Committee is divided in this issue of whether the
property should be limited to 1,000 square meters. But lately we have been
receiving
comments and feedbacks from groups that this should be expanded because
there are many Filipinos who want to invest in the Philippines. But I think this
matter should be left to legislation for Congress to decide. They are in a
better position to find out what should be the exact size or area which
Filipinos who lost their citizenship can acquire as property.
MS. QUESADA: Going back to Section 3, the section suggests that:
The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources . . . may
be directly undertaken by the State, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture or production-sharing agreement with . . . corporations or
interest is
owned by such citizens.
Lines 25 to 30, on the other hand, suggest that in the large-scale exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources, the President with the
concurrence of Congress may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations even for technical or financial assistance.
I wonder if this first part of Section 3 contradicts the second part. I am raising
this point for fear that foreign investors will use their enormous
capital resources to facilitate the actual exploitation or exploration,
development and effective disposition of our natural resources to the
detriment of
Filipino investors. I am not saying that we should not consider borrowing
money from foreign sources. What I refer to is that foreign interest should be
allowed to participate only to the extent that they lend us money and give us
technical assistance with the appropriate government permit. In this way, we
can insure the enjoyment of our natural resources by our own people.
MR. VILLEGAS: Actually, the second provision about the President does not
permit foreign investors to participate. It is only technical or financial
assistance they do not own anything but on conditions that have to be
determined by law with the concurrence of Congress. So, it is very restrictive.
If the Commissioner will remember, this removes the possibility for service
contracts which we said yesterday were avenues used in the previous regime
to
go around the 60-40 requirement.
MS. QUESADA: Section 10 states, and I quote:
The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority, the
majority of whose governing board shall come from the private sector, which
shall provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit.
Is my understanding correct that the Committee is leaving it to Congress to
define the criteria on who become members?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Mr. Vice-President, as long as it is independent of the
executive, that is our constitutional mandate. We want to avoid that situation
where the ministers from the executive branch systematically dominate the
Monetary Board which actually leads to a lot of excesses in spending.
MS. QUESADA: Is it possible, when the proper time comes, to qualify the
private sector to insure that even in this Constitution we are already
protecting
Filipino interests? Private sector could mean people sitting in this very
important governing board of the Monetary Authority but who might not be
protecting the interests of the Filipinos. Is that not possible?
MR. VILLEGAS: We will welcome suggestions on how to ensure that Congress
will really take into account the interests of all in the private sector.
MS. QUESADA: We would not want to give Congress the ultimate
responsibility to define. But should we not, at this point when we have the
chance to define
just who this private sector is, define it so that we can qualify it to mean that
the private sector would refer to those primarily carrying Filipino
interests?
MR. VILLEGAS: Does the Commissioner think of an adjective like private
Filipino sector?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: There would be no quarrel with that qualification.
MS. QUESADA: Regarding Sections 12 and 13, I take it that these two
sections address the mode of participation and control by the State of
economic
enterprises, particularly vital industries, during periods of external
aggression and other national emergencies. In this respect, does the
Gentleman not
think that it is necessary to define vital industries to eliminate any
ambiguity in the exercise by the State of this power when the eventuality
arises?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, this was fully discussed in the Committee and the
decision was that the word vital is so dependent on changing
circumstances that we
would actually be tying the hands of the State if we start enumerating what
are vital now. What may be vital tomorrow may not be vital now. So, I think it
would also be presumptuous of the Constitutional Commission to actually
define what will be vital forever.
MS. QUESADA: On the proposed Section 15, is it the understanding that part
of the intent of this particular section precludes the intervention of
foreign-vested interest in the actual operation and management of public
utilities either as an officer, employee or consultant? Would this not be
unduly
constitutionalizing dummies?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, in this specific section we are limiting the participation in
equity to one-third and there is no mention of any other control that they
can have.
MS. QUESADA: So, there is no safeguard at all that those who would get into
these corporations or associations may actually be dummies?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think that will now have to be enforced by Anti-Dummy Law
and all sorts of legislation. It is very difficult to see all the loopholes in
the Constitution. For the information of the Commissioner, there is an AntiDummy Law.
MR. MONSOD: All the provisions limiting foreign ownership in different
enterprises are all subject to the same danger where there are Filipinos who
allow
themselves to be dummies of foreigners, and it is very difficult to guard
against that. But the Anti-Dummy Law should take care of those cases
because
there are both civil and criminal penalties or sanctions for allowing oneself to
be a dummy of foreign interests.
MS. QUESADA: Should there not be some kind of provision here that would
penalize Filipinos who act as dummies?
MR. MONSOD: That is already in the Anti-Dummy Law, and we would get into
very detailed legislation because there are also different intensities or
difficulties or degrees of being a dummy. We would have to go into quite a bit
of detail if the Commissioner wants to go into that. Or we can put a general
statement that Filipinos who allow themselves to be dummies of foreign
interests shall be dealt with by law.
MS. QUESADA: Something like what Commissioner Ople said about dual
allegiance being dealt with in accordance with law.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, we would welcome any suggestions the Commissioner
may have along those lines in order to reflect the intent of this Commission.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Tingson be

recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, I have one or two questions to ask of the
Committee and Commissioner Ed Garcia. The first question I would like to
ask the
Committee is that stated in Section 10, about the operation of banks:
The Congress . . . shall have supervisory authority over the operations of
banks and exercise such regulatory authority as may be provided by law over
the
operations of finance companies and other institutions performing similar
functions.
I notice that there are quite a number of banking facilities in our country
today that are being run by people who do not seem to be Filipinos to me I
do
not-know whether they are Filipinos. Is this something that the Committee
would like to curb to see to it that under our new Constitution such important
financial agencies or banks of the country would be controlled completely by
Filipino citizens?
MR. VILLEGAS: There are very strict regulations of the Central Bank right now
limiting what foreigners can do in the banking sector. Again, that is
something legislation has already been addressing systematically.
MR. TINGSON: But is that the sense of the Committee now, to make it more
strict?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Mr. Vice-President.
I have in my hands a well-written treatise entitled: Framework of an
Economic Alternative. Our colleague mentions the alternative society we
want sort of
an ideal society that must have an economy which embodies the following
three central objectives:
The first one is a self-reliant development of the nations productive forces
geared to satisfy the needs of our people. I think I do understand that. That
is clear.
The second is also self-explanatory Filipinos should have control of the

economy and that is called economic nationalism.
But regarding the third one, may I hear from the proponent what is exactly
meant by economic democracy towards social equity? It sounds something
beyond
my comprehension for I am not an economist and I would like to know the
meaning of economic democracy towards social equity.
MR. GARCIA: Mr. Vice-President, may I be permitted to answer?
This was precisely the debate in our caucus. In fact, when we were
discussing the idea of private initiative. . . .
MR. TINGSON: I wanted the Gentleman to state it for the record. That is one
of the reasons I am asking.
MR. GARCIA: In discussing the issue of private initiative, it is important to
distinguish. It is not sufficient to have the wealth of the country in the
hands of private initiative as the engine of economic growth. We must stress
and emphasize again and again that it is not only for Filipinos but for the
majority of Filipinos. In other words, it must be socialized as much as
possible; the base must be broadened in terms of participation, management
and
control. If there can be sectors in our society that want to participate in
economic enterprise, that must be recognized. To say private is not
sufficient. That is why I was advocating to include and recognize the
cooperative or social sector to broaden it.
Secondly, on the whole idea of popular participation, the mechanisms of
consultation or sectoral representation, for example, in the Monetary Board
and in
other institutions are necessary to insure that those who decide policies
affecting the lives of a great majority also concern those social sectors, not
just the limited concept of private. My difficulty with stressing private is
that sometimes or very often, our experience historically is that it
becomes confined to just a very few. That has been our problem. In fact,
accusations or critiques have been made against state or public-led
development. I
can also cite many examples where simply relying on private initiatives
without stressing or underscoring the whole social character of economic
growth
leads to so much injustice.
MR. TINGSON: Within the purview of what the Gentleman is saying, would he
welcome friendly foreigners to lend us their technical expertise in helping
develop our country?
MR. GARCIA: Part 2 of this proposal, Filipino control of the economy, in fact,
says that the entry of foreign capital, technology and business enterprises
into the national economy shall be effectively regulated to ensure the
protection of the interest of our people.
In other words, we welcome them but on our own terms. This is very similar
to our position on loans. We welcome loans as long as they are paid on our
own
terms, on our ability to pay, not on their terms. For example, the case of Peru
is instructive. They decided first to develop and grow, and were willing to
pay only 10 percent of their foreign exchange earnings. That, I think, is a
very commendable position given the economic situation of a country such
as
Peru. The Philippines is a similar case, especially when we realize that the
foreign debt was made by a government that was bankrupt in its desire to
serve
the people.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, I think we have to make a distinction that it
is not really realistic to say that we will borrow on our own terms. Maybe we
can say that we inherited unjust loans, and we would like to repay these on
terms that are not prejudicial to our own growth. But the general statement
that we should only borrow on our own terms is a bit unrealistic.
MR. GARCIA: Excuse me. The point I am trying to make is that we do not
have to borrow. If we have to borrow, it must be on our terms. In other words,
banks
do not lend out of the goodness of their hearts. Banks lend to make a profit.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, I think the trouble in our country is that we
have forgotten the scriptural injunction that the borrower becomes a slave
to the lender. That is the trouble with our country; we have borrowed and
borrowed but we forget that we become slaves to those who lend us.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, we do not have to borrow. But we have to
have domestic savings, or we should be willing to be taxed by the
government for
government expenditures because there are very few ways by which we can
raise funds for investment.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, I appreciate that. I thank Commissioner Garcia very much.
I have only one more question to ask the Committee. On page 5 of the first
part of the committee report, the following proposed resolutions can be
found:
entitled: RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES OF THE
VARIOUS
PROFESSIONS TO FILIPINO PROFESSIONALS; and Proposed Resolution No.
432, introduced by Honorable Maambong, Ople, Natividad and de los Reyes,
Jr., entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE OF ANY PROFESSION TO FILIPINO
CITIZENS SAVE IN CASES OF RECIPROCITY TO ALIENS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY
UNDER CONDITIONS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW. Since the Committee did take cognizance of these
resolutions, I suppose the Committee is in sympathy with the idea in these
resolutions
although I cannot find specifically where it is stated in the report. Am I right
to say that?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, when it was discussed yesterday, although the intention
of the Committee was to send it to the Committee on General Provisions. It
seems
it never got there; it got misplaced. So, what we suggest is that at the
appropriate time some amendments be introduced which we will entertain.
MR. TINGSON: Filipino doctors in America are trying their best to have the
U.S. change their regulations so that they, too, can have reciprocity there. If
we ask it from another country, would there not be a corresponding response
on our part to also give the same privilege to the countries that offer such
reciprocity to us?
MR. MONSOD: I think we have to realize that sometimes we are in a very
poor bargaining position. Also, the situation may not be the same in both
countries.
In our country, we may need to put more limitation than they would in theirs
for the common good.
MR. TINGSON: I understand.
MR. BENGZON: May I also add that, perhaps, we would already be treading
into legislation at that particular point.
MR. TINGSON: I just wanted to find out. Thank you very much.
Finally, I suppose the Gentleman will agree that scientific knowledge is no

respector of racial or geographical boundaries. Therefore, if there is no
Filipino know-how and, for example, we need medical experts, we certainly
would not prevent European or American doctors from coming, and giving
them the
privilege of practicing along that line, would we?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is really something that can be studied by the Congress
and by the executive on a case-to-case basis.
MR. TINGSON: I am very much aware of the Christian virtue of gratitude. For
instance, Dr. Jose Rizal was in high praises in his writings of his
benefactors, European tutors, in gratitude for giving him the benefits of
education and other help he received in Europe. Similarly, since for so many
years we were under the tutelage of the United States, we should also have
a feeling of gratitude towards Americans. I know an American from Memphis,
Tennessee whose name is Mr. Ed McAteer and is the head of the Round Table
in the United States. He has helped quite a number of our Filipino students.
Of
course, we do not want him to feel that he is no longer welcome in our
country. We do not want them to feel that this country is only for the Filipinos
and
they are not allowed anymore. Certainly, that is not our feeling; is it?
MR. BENNAGEN: When we speak of foreigners, we make distinctions between
the citizens and their government. When we criticize foreign intervention, we
criticize the intervention of government as reflected in its foreign policy but
not the citizens. I think that distinction should be very clear in our mind
so that it will not be understood that when we speak against Americans, we
are speaking also against all American citizens.
MR. TINGSON: That is very helpful. Thank you very much
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President, I would like to respond to Commissioner
Tingson.
MS. QUESADA: The Gentleman asked if we should not allow experts like
medical specialists to come to the Philippines and practice their profession in
the
spirit of friendship or goodwill. As far as I know, there are existing provisions
of the Professional Regulatory Act that prevent the practice of
professions in the Philippines unless such professionals are fully registered in
the Philippines. We have not established that kind of parity. And there
will be vehement objection to putting that provision on the entry of foreign
experts to practice their profession in the Philippines in the Constitution.
As a matter of fact, there are experts in the Philippines; and we export our
experts to other countries. They are very exportable; they are well in
demand
all over the world. So, I would really be cautious about including that in the
understanding that when we talk about technical exchange, we would not
allow
that encroachment on the realm of our own professionals.
Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I understand that when Commissioner
Gascon made his interpellation, he forgot to ask a question or two. So, may I
ask
that Commissioner Gascon be recognized?
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Vice-President, before he is recognized, I want to ask
Commissioner Garcia one brief question.
MR. BENNAGEN: Regarding the Gentlemans answer to the question of
Commissioner Tingson on economic democracy, there is one provision on
page 4, Section 8.
It says:
The President, after consultations with the appropriate public agencies and
the private sector, including labor and peasant organizations, shall
recommend
to Congress and implement an integrated and coordinated approach to
national development.
Is that, in any way, related to the Gentlemans understanding of economic
democracy only as a part, not necessarily the whole concept of economic
democracy and if he feels that it is not, would the Commissioner be willing to
provide us with some amendments to strengthen the participation of other
sectors in the overall planning and implementation of national economic
programs?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia may reply, if he so desires.

That type of popular participation is one mode of participation that is
envisioned. In fact, I was envisioning that even in central planning of the
economy
like what is being done by the NEDA, popular participation can be
incorporated to make it truly democratic. That is what I meant by this
democratic
participation even in the highest levels of economic planning for the nation.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Sarmiento has something to say.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Ople gave us a list of his amendments. Will
these two amendments be closer to the Commissioners idea of economic
democratization? For instance, amendment (d): THE SUSTAINED
DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL TALENT POOL OF ENTREPRENEURS,
MANAGERS, PROFESSIONALS AND SKILLED
WORKERS OR CRAFTSMEN IN ALL FIELDS SHALL BE A SHARED
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR. Then another
amendment, now (f): IT SHALL BE THE
POLICY OF THE STATE TO ENCOURAGE WORKERS AND FARMERS, AS WELL AS
OTHER SECTORS TO PARTICIPATE DIRECTLY IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY
FORMING THEIR OWN
COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISES WHICH SHALL ENJOY SUCH INCENTIVES AS
CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE.
MR. GARCIA: I think the second one especially is in the same spirit. As I have
mentioned earlier, there are two aspects actually: First, is the
participation and consultation level; and, second, is basically management
control and ownership which perhaps is a higher level, depending on the
stage of
economic level that will be reached by the country.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that Commissioner Gascon be
recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I just have one or two more questions on Section 3; then as a response,
actually an echo to Commissioner Garcias beautiful paper on economic
alternatives,
I jotted down some reflections and perspectives on the economic problem
myself and I would like to share them with you.
With regard to Section 3, line 25, says:

The President, with the concurrence of Congress, by a special law, shall
provide the terms and conditions under which a foreign-owned corporation
may enter
into agreements with the government involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources.
I do recall that in the June 30 and July 2 drafts of this proposed Article, the
phrasing was:
The Legislature may, by two-thirds vote of all its Members, by a special law,
provide the terms and conditions under which a foreign-owned corporation
may
enter into agreements with the government, involving either technical or
financial assistance.
As I asked yesterday what concurrence means, the Commissioner said that
it is a simple majority. What was the rationale of the Committee for
diminishing
the two-thirds vote of Congress to a mere concurrence of the majority?
MR. VILLEGAS: The Commissioner might have been absent during that
meeting, but the majority voted.
MR. GASCON: Yes. What was the rationale for the decision of the majority of
the members of the Committee?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think the rationale was, since we need a lot of financial
assistance at this particular time of our development, we have to make it
easier
for foreign investors to come in.
MR. GASCON: In Commissioner Nolledos textbook on the 1973 Constitution,
he pointed out that one major reason for the inclusion in the 1973
Constitution of
an explicit provision allowing service contracts was that there was doubt
about their constitutionality based on the 1935 Constitution. Also, Professor
Merlin Magallona of the UP College of Law pointed out in the paper
Nationalism and the New Constitution that, in effect, service contracts
legalized
dummyism in natural resource exploitation. Thus, if the spirit behind this
Article on National Economy and Patrimony is the development of a selfreliant
and independent national economy, should not Congress be extracareful in
allowing foreigners to exploit our already scarce natural resources? Since

these
resources are scarce already, should not their utilization be reserved first and
foremost to Filipinos?
MR. VILLEGAS: Since the Committee was divided on this, I think this is one
thing that can be brought to the body.
MR. GASCON: So what does the Commissioner think of that particular
question; should we not be more extracareful instead of the other way
around?
MR. VILLEGAS: I would rather throw it to the body.
I would like to share or echo some of my reflections primarily based on the
good points of Commissioner Garcia, if I may.
The Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, shall be the foundation by
which all future legislations concerning our society shall be based, and it
shall provide the principles which should guide the actions of our future
leaders as well as the people of the Republic. Hence, I believe that all the
Commissioners have a responsibility to try their best to produce a
constitution from which shall evolve a society that shall aim to ensure
progressiveness
or a continual betterment in the quality of life of the individual Filipino.
To elaborate on this vision, we must point out primarily what the problems of
contemporary Philippine society are and from there, what our objectives
should be. In this Article on National Economy and Patrimony, we must
confront the problem of underdevelopment. Simultaneously, it also gives us
the
opportunity to provide the basic ingredients for a national development
program. It would not be right to leave such a program totally in the hands of
one
government agency. The people must not be excluded from meaningful
participation in the decision-making process that involves their interests. And
I
believe that is what we are doing now when we speak of providing greater
opportunities for private sectors which include peoples organizations and
peoples movements in the definition of our economic program.
Hence, it is appropriate to have such a provision in this Constitution.
I perceive the main problems of the economy to be: First, scandalous poverty
for the majority of the population while a few live in luxury; second, the
inability to sustain a process of national capital accumulation; and, third low
development of our productive forces.
In our analysis, massive poverty stems from the combination of unequal
distribution of wealth and power, and economic backwardness. Unequal
distribution of
wealth necessarily means that there is a lack of democratic access to the
factors of production, as well as the means of production. Hence, basic
property
rights and regulations should be questioned. In our view, private ownership
and exclusive rights to access to our resources and means of production
naturally lead to potential abuse and, therefore, overconcentration of such
resources in the hands of a few leaves the rest of society unable to
accumulate
their own surplus and they become vulnerable to exploitation by the
powerful minority.
Thus, both private and state capitalism can lead to the poverty of the
majority because in both instances the producers are directly separated from
the
productive process which is still controlled by a few. The producers cannot
determine what goods shall be produced. When I speak of producers, I speak
primarily of the workers. And profits are utilized in a manner that only a few
decide upon. Both private and state capitalism follow the rule of the
market, meaning, they will invest in the production of goods which are the
most profitable.
In contemporary Philippine society, the most profitable goods are those
which are demanded by the sectors with money. These are the local highincome
market and the export market. Mass consumer goods are, therefore,
neglected. Corollary to this, the majority of the workers are not the targeted
market;
they are not the consumers. Hence, there is no incentive to increase their
wages.
Our economy is also highly integrated into the world capitalist market. This is
unhealthy for us because it creates unnecessary dependence on foreign
markets, foreign capital and foreign goods. I say unnecessary because I
believe we have the resources to produce our own: they are only untapped
and
wrongly allocated.
In order to develop our productive forces or our capability of producing goods

and services, we must first be able to accumulate surplus so as to rechannel
it into further investments in the economy.
But if ours is a dependent country, having to import all the time for a lot of
things especially, as Commissioner Tadeo has mentioned, we have to
import
machines to produce we should start with this proposal by really making a
definite position on industrialization so that we can begin to build machines
which make machines.
If ours is a dependent economy, this will continue to give the country a
balance of trade deficits. Financing the deficits with massive loans
compounds the
problems, and all these factors result in our surplus being siphoned out by
the foreign investors or traders. Such a country that always relies on others
for its own development will not be able to genuinely create improvement in
its own economy when it so desires.
What happens then to our national sovereignty? All economic agenda for
development, if we continue to operate within the same dependent
framework, shall
always have to be first approved by our trading partners or foreign creditors.
What type of a society do I envision, therefore, and from this vision, what
things must we have on our agenda for development?
First, let us define development. Development here is meant as the act of
breaking away from that which envelops and, therefore, constrains our
movement
and of relying principally on our latent resources and potentials to move
towards a more advanced state.
Bearing this in mind, we must then strive for our economy that is selfdirected, self-sustaining and self-reliant. We are in favor of an economy that
guarantees an increase in the standard of living for a majority of our people,
but we do not want this increase to be due to or dependent on, decisions of
foreigners or events outside the control of our elected leaders. A case in
point is our current economic recovery program. Our country has become so
dependent on foreign capital inflow to finance importations of basic
commodities and production inputs that our country cannot seem to begin in
the path
towards growth without foreign investments and debts. And, understandably,
the foreigners will not invest in the Philippines merely because of their
admiration of our revolution; rather, they want an assurance of profitability
regardless of the socio-political and economic problems of our people.
Thus, it will take time for this recovery program to begin, and many of our
people are daily being killed softly by unemployment and starvation. Our
task,
therefore, in this Commission is to bequeath to future generations a direction
for the State to create an independent, self-sustaining, self-reliant and
self-sufficient economy, and the sooner we explicate that the Philippine
economy belongs first and foremost to Filipinos, then the better so as to
reduce
gradually our dependence on foreign capital for our development efforts.
Then the producers should be given the right to determine what goods shall
be produced. The economy should be receptive to the needs of the majority
of its
citizens. In order for the producers to have such power of self-determination,
they should have direct access to the means of production. This is the
economic democracy which Commissioner Garcia speaks of. Hence, a
democratization of access to these sources, and a more equitable
distribution of wealth
should be a priority. The owner works, and the worker owns.
We must have an economy whose priority is the welfare of the Filipino. Thus,
it must be independent and free from the dictates of trading partners and
must
uphold the interest of the Filipinos.
However, it is not enough merely to call for a nationalization of industries.
Property rights and control of such industries should be diffused among all
Filipinos, and such industries must be geared not to the demands of the
foreigners but to the needs of the Filipinos. We must move away from
dependency on
others to answer our unemployment or poverty problems. Therefore, we
must tap our own resources to develop our own productive process. We must
try to wean
our economy away from the global capitalist market so that our country shall
become less vulnerable to world market price fluctuations or capital flight.
These are some of my basic ideas in support of a genuinely independent and
self-reliant economy and of the democratization of our economy.
Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President, just so it cannot be said that the
Committee is not aware of the Rules, we would like to state for the record
that we were
tolerant in listening to the privilege speech of Commissioner Gascon,
although we felt that it was out of order. We allowed him to finish although it
would
have been proper to make his privilege speech simply part of the record.
MR. GASCON: I would like to thank the Committee for its tolerance.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, considering that we have no more
interpellators, may I be allowed to propound some questions to the
Committee?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: First of all, something has been said here by Commissioner
Tingson about Proposed Resolution No. 432 which was filed by this Member
and
Commissioners Ople, Natividad and de los Reyes, Jr., limiting the practice of
any profession to Filipino citizens save in cases of reciprocity to aliens of
another country that permits Filipinos to practice their profession within its
territory under conditions prescribed by law. A similar resolution was filed
also by Commissioner Rosario Braid.
I just want to make it of record that this resolution which we filed is not
actually our own formulation. We practically copied it from RA 5181;
unfortunately, after we had filed it, we received very adverse comments. I do
not know for what reasons, but perhaps some were thinking that we were not
trying to protect Filipino citizens. Nevertheless, we will bring this up later on
to the Committee
I would like to go to another point, Mr. Vice-President. I am not an economist,
so I would like to get certain verifications from the Committee. I have
here an article which says that foreign investments are concentrated in each
sector of Philippine economy such as banking, manufacturing and mining. Is
this true?
MR. VILLEGAS: Not in banking, and in manufacturing it depends on which
manufacturing sector.
MR. MAAMBONG: So, that is not exactly true.
MR. VILLEGAS: No.
MR. MAAMBONG: Another statement here is that multinational corporations
dominate major lines of industry, as in drugs and pharmaceuticals, food
processing,
petroleum and tire manufacturing. Is this true, Mr. Vice-President?
MR. VILLEGAS: In tire manufacturing, yes, but in drugs, the biggest market
share is in the hands of United Laboratories. In fact, it is unique in the
world. There is only one country in the world where 25 percent of the
pharmaceutical market is in the hands of one company which happens to be
a local
company.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the Commissioner for that clarification. Then,
finally, there is a statement here that foreign interests also hold sway over
assembly
and packing, export production and trading. Is this exactly correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Again, that depends on which sector. In bananas, it has been
basically multinational. In other export crops, like coconut, it is not.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President, may I just clarify the statement of
Commissioner Villegas with respect to the fact that 25 percent of drug
purchases is
concentrated on one company. We just like to state that this was the
situation in the old dispensation, but this is precisely what the present
Ministry of
Health is trying to break and which, I believe, it has already broken in the
sense that every drug purchase is now open to bidding. There are no more
negotiated purchases. We just want to make that clarification.
MS. QUESADA: I just like to correct the information that there is no monopoly
of the drug manufacturing business in the Philippines which is not controlled
by foreign big business or multinationals.
The Commissioner just referred to the drug distribution which has been the
monopoly of United Laboratories until the intervention of the new
government.
But insofar as the production of drug is concerned, it still remains in the
hands of foreign big business. That is the reality and that is what we are
trying to drive at in our rationalization of the drug policies of the country.
MR. VILLEGAS: It really depends on what the Commissioner means by
monopoly. If by monopoly, she means one specific multinational firm
controlling more than
10 percent of the market share, it does not exist. But if we put all
multinational firms together, then we can say that the foreign or
multinational sector
has the biggest market share, and that is true. But there is cut-throat
competition between them, so that is not monopoly. I think the
Commissioner has to
define her term monopoly.
MS. QUESADA: Perhaps not monopoly, but I refer to the production of very
essential drugs.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, they may be producing but, as I said, the American and
European multinational firms are at one anothers throat competing like mad,
and
that is not monopoly in economic literature.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Vice-President, my understanding of the question of
Commissioner Maambong has something to do with foreign control or foreign
monopoly.
MR. MAAMBONG: No, my main point is to check the veracity of the quoted
statements because I will ask the Committee questions in connection with
Sections 9
and 15. I am just laying the basis, and it appears to me that my basis is
wrong because most of the answers of the Committee are to the effect that
the one
I am reading is not actually correct. Anyway, may I ask another question.
There is a statement in this report that I have that nearly 40 percent of the
countrys top 100 corporations are either foreign firms or subsidiaries of
foreign corporations or have sizeable foreign equities. Is this a correct
statement?
MR. VILLEGAS: What is sizeable?
MR. MAAMBONG: It says that nearly 40 percent of the countrys top 100
corporations are either foreign firms, subsidiaries of foreign corporations or
have
sizeable foreign equity.
MR. VILLEGAS: What is sizeable foreign equity, more than 40 percent?
MR. MAAMBONG: I really do now know, I am just reading a report. Is this not
also correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: If by sizeable, it means 15 or 20 percent, it might be true
because there is that much foreign equity definitely.
MR. MAAMBONG: Maybe the next question will clarify it. It says here that,
according to the figures released by the Securities and Exchange
Commission,
these corporations accounted for 40 percent of sales, and 70 percent of net
profits of the top 100 corporations in 1984. Is this a correct statement?
MR. VILLEGAS: I would not be able to answer, because I have to look at the
data.
MR. MAAMBONG: Anyway, all these questions lead me to my next question.
Under Sections 9 and 15, it appears to me that our form of control or
regulation
when it comes to foreign investments is actually in terms of the percentages
in their interest.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: And if we do not use the word control, our regulation is
only up to that extent. When a foreign entity comes in and tries to do
business in
our country, we only check what its equity contribution is and that is it.
MR. VILLEGAS: No, there are also other controls, depending on which sector
of the economy the Commissioner is examining. For example, in the financial
sector, multinationals cannot borrow without limit anymore because of a
regulation of the Central Bank coordinated with BOI that they are limited to
the
equity that they have brought in.
MR. MAAMBONG: I think I am beginning to understand.
MR. VILLEGAS: Or they can remit profits in a limited way. There have been so
many controls, precisely that is the reason why, as I said earlier, compared
to Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, foreign investments in the Philippines
have been a pittance over the last ten years.
MR. MAAMBONG: So would it be more correct to say that we have control or
regulation in terms of: first, when a foreign investor or foreign business firm
comes in, we have regulations on the business organization itself?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then, secondly, when they conduct their business
transactions, we have other forms of control?
MR. MAAMBONG: And when they go into some kind of business operations,
we have other sets of control?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. Even their use of land is controlled.
MR. MAAMBONG: My next point is, all these controls that we are talking
about are embodied in our laws, and taken in totality these provisions which
we are
now discussing do not, in any way, as of this moment and until Congress acts
otherwise, destroy whatever controls or regulations are existing as of now.
MR. VILLEGAS: No, they do not.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am happy to hear that.
I am particularly interested in the nationalization laws that we have. Just to
mention a few, we have the Anti-Dummy Law, which is actually
Commonwealth
Act 108, amended several times.
MR. VILLEGAS: Could the Commissioner please define his terms? By
nationalization, does he mean Filipinization?
MR. MAAMBONG: Filipinization? Other authors call it nationalization, but let
us use the Commissioners word.
As I was saying, we have the Anti-Dummy Law or Commonwealth Act 108,
amended several times; we have the Anti-Dummy Board or RA 1130; the
Retail Trade
Nationalization Law; and the Rice and Corn Industry Law. We have the
different flag laws: the Anti-Dumping Law and the Filipino Retailers Act or RA
1292.
All these laws, as of this moment, are not affected by the present
configuration of our draft Constitution?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, they are not.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is my next point. We have mentioned here in one of
the provisions, words or phrases like monopolies, combinations in
restraint of
trade, and unfair competition. My question is: Are they understood, as
used in the provision, in relation to the definition of the same terms in the
Revised Penal Code, because Article 186 thereof mentions monopolies and
combinations in restraint of trade; Article 189 speaks of unfair
competition;
Article 187 speaks of importation and disposition of falsely marked
articles? Or do these terms, as used in the provision of this Constitution now

being
formulated, have meanings more general than those indicated in the Revised
Penal Code?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, we read them in the context of the Revised Penal Code.
MR. MAAMBONG: They are in the context of the Revised Penal Code. Thank
you.
The last point is this: Under Section 7, we have here a provision which refers
to natural-born citizens of the Philippines. Would it affect the Committees
thinking if this term natural-born citizen were taken out and instead we just
say a citizen of the Philippines, which means naturalized citizens would
also be given the same privilege under Section 7?
MR. VILLEGAS: A naturalized citizen?
MR. MAAMBONG: We just say, for example, Notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 6 of this Article, a citizen of the Philippines who has lost his
Philippine citizenship, meaning, that if he was a naturalized citizen of the
Philippines, went to the United States, lost his citizenship, and then came
back, then he can be a transferee of a private land solely for residential
purposes. Would it affect so much the thinking of the Committee?
MR. VILLEGAS: We can bring that up in the committee meeting.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am prompted to ask this because I actually received a
telegram recently from a certain Dr. Philip Chua, President of the Association
of
Philippine Physicians in America, 1830 Mirmar Road, Munster, Indiana 46321,
USA, and I understand the Committee also received the same telegram, but
the
request was more than what I am talking about because they are saying that
this Article should allow them to be transferees of private lands without any
mention of the dimensions of the land.
That would be all for my questions.
MR. MONSOD: May we ask and reiterate our request to all those who have
any proposed amendments, if we can have them so that the Committee can
have an
emergency meeting right now in order to consider all of these amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Commissioner Suarez, I think, is going to say something.

We would like to clarify that last proposition which Commissioner Maambong
advanced regarding extending the same privilege given to natural-born
citizens
under Section 7 of the proposed draft to naturalized citizens. Is the
Gentleman referring to a situation where, say, one who was originally
Chinese becomes
naturalized as a Filipino citizen; goes back to Taipeh, then loses his Filipino
citizenship, would be given the same right as that of a natural-born
Filipino citizen to be a transferee of a residential lot equivalent to, say, 1,000
square meters? Is that what the Gentleman had in mind?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, that was what I had in mind.
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner would not want to make a distinction
between a natural-born citizen and a naturalized Filipino citizen who both lost
their
Filipino citizenship by virtue of the fact that they had gone abroad and had
established not only residence or domicile abroad but also acquired the
citizenship of the country where they have been residing.
MR. MAAMBONG: No, because I am thinking purely in terms of logic. When
one becomes a naturalized citizen of the Philippines, he can acquire land just
like
a natural-born citizen. In other words, if he acquires another citizenship, he
had that right to acquire land but he lost it because he lost his Filipino
citizenship. My thinking is just to renew that kind of right under Section 7. If
we have to give this right at all, the natural-born and the naturalized
citizens should be at par with each other, as far as the rights they originally
had. For example, if a natural-born citizen can run for public office, a
naturalized citizen cannot, and even if the latter regains his Filipino
citizenship, we cannot give him parity in terms of running for public office,
because the naturalized citizen never had that qualification in the first place.
That is just my thinking based on logic, but I really do not know the
thinking of the Committee on this regard.
MR. SUAREZ: We are trying to clear up this point. Does not the Commissioner
see any substantial difference between a natural-born Filipino citizen and a
naturalized citizen going back to his old country probably in the years to
come, because of the fact that he or she may have acquired a piece of land
of
about 1,000 square meters?
MR. MAAMBONG: I really do not see any substantial difference because if we

relate this to the purpose of Section 7, the 1,000 square meters will only be
purely for residential purposes. He cannot go into business just because of
this. So, when he comes back, the intention is really to stay on his
residential land.
At the proper time, the Committee will study that proposed amendment if it
is submitted.
MR. BENGZON: I think the Floor Leader is about to ask for a recess, but
before he does that, may I just make an announcement in my capacity as
Chairman of
the Steering Committee.
I know that there are a lot of us who are taking break, so I know they are
listening. When we come back after the break may I suggest that it would
probably be better for us to vote on the Article on Social Justice on Third
Reading, because the clean copy was already distributed yesterday. I have
taken
some informal surveys and polls so if we will have a majority when the
session is resumed, then I would move for a voting of that Article on Social
Justice
on Third Reading.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, with the indulgence of the Chairman of
the Steering Committee, I would rather dispose of two pending
interpellations. And
if that is all right with the Chairman of the Steering Committee, so that we
will not have any business hanging on this matter, I ask that Commissioner
Foz
be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Vice-President, in Sections 3 and 9, the provision on equity is
both 60 percent, but I notice that this is now different from the provision in
the 1973 Constitution in that the basis for the equity provision is voting stock
or controlling interest instead of the usual capital percentage as
provided for in the 1973 Constitution. We would like to know what the
difference would be between the previous and the proposed provisions
regarding equity
interest.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Suarez will answer that.
As a matter of fact, this particular portion is still being reviewed by this
Committee. In Section 1, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, the wording is
that the percentage should be based on the capital which is owned by such
citizens. In the proposed draft, this phrase was proposed: voting stock or
controlling interest. This was a plan submitted by the UP Law Center.
Three days ago, we had an early morning breakfast conference with the
members of the UP Law Center and precisely, we were seeking clarification
regarding
the difference. We would have three criteria to go by: One would be based on
capital, which is the capital stock of the corporation, authorized, subscribed
or paid-up, as was employed under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions. The
idea behind the introduction of the phrase voting stock or controlling
interest was precisely to avoid the perpetration of dummies, Filipino
dummies of multinationals. It is theoretically possible that a situation may
develop
where these multinational interests would not really be only 40 percent but
will even extend beyond that in the matter of voting because they could
enter
into what is known as a voting trust or voting agreement with the rest of the
stockholders and, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that on record their
capital extent is only up to 40-percent interest in the corporation, actually,
they would be managing and controlling the entire company. That is why the
UP Law Center members suggested that we utilize the words voting
interest which would preclude multinational control in the matter of voting,
independent
of the capital structure of the corporation. And then they also added the
phrase controlling interest which up to now they have not been able to
successfully define the exact meaning of. But they mentioned the situation
where theoretically the board would be controlled by these multinationals,
such
that instead of, say, three Filipino directors out of five, there would be three
foreign directors and, therefore, they would be controlling the management
of the company with foreign interest. That is why they volunteered to flesh
out this particular portion which was submitted by them, but up to now, they
have not come up with a constructive rephrasing of this portion. And as far
as I am concerned, I am not speaking in behalf of the Committee, I would
feel
more comfortable if we go back to the wording of the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions, that is to say, the 60-40 percentage could be based on the
capital
stock of the corporation.
MR. FOZ: I understand that was the same view of Dean Carale who does not
agree with the others on this panel at the UP Law Center regarding the
percentage
of the ratio.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Dean Carale shares my sentiment about this
matter.
MR. BENGZON: I also share the sentiment of Commissioner Suarez in that
respect. So there are already two in the Committee who want to go back to
the
wording of the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions.
MR. SUAREZ: It is good to have lawyers in the Committee.
MR. FOZ: Another question. In Section 4, the size of the homestead for
acquisition through purchase by an individual or citizen is only 24 hectares,
which
is just a reiteration of the previous provision of past Constitutions. But in view
of the increasing population and the diminishing availability of
alienable land, is this figure of 24 hectares still practical and feasible?
MR. VILLEGAS: If the Commissioner continues reading lines 10 to 14 of the
provision, it says: The Congress, taking into account . . . shall determine by
law the size of lands of the public domain which may be developed, held or
acquired . . . which means that this is really only the maximum limit and
that
Congress may determine a smaller limit.
MR. FOZ: Congress may still delimit the size?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, exactly, depending on the circumstances.
MR. FOZ: Section 11, about the formation or organization of private
corporations, is not clear on how government corporations may be organized
or created.
Is the Committee saying that government-owned or controlled corporations
may be created not only by special law but also by general law?
MR. VILLEGAS: In fact, we are thinking of going back to the 1973

phraseology.
MR. SUAREZ: By special charter; that is the meaning of this exercise. Majority
of the committee members feel that we should go back to the 1973 terms
and
conditions.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
In Section 15, the equity requirement in the case of public utilities is twothirds of the voting stock or controlling interest. We understand that a
telecommunication company or firm is covered by this provision because it is
considered a public utility. Now, I remember there is a similar provision in
the report of the Committee on General Provisions. If this provision is
approved along with the other provisions of this committee report, then there
would
be no need for the counterpart provision in the Committee on General
Provisions.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Would this be an advanced approval of what is contained in the
Committee on General Provisions?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Are there any other interpellators?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Mr. Vice-President. I ask that Commissioner Quesada
be recognized for one additional question.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President, I just like to make some clarification on
one point which, if satisfactory, may need no amendments from this
Member, and
this is in connection with the ecological protection of the environment in
relation to foreign investments. I have here with me papers on the ecological
effect of the Dole Philippines and the Kawasaki Steel Mills, and how these
particular investments in our country have contributed to the degradation of
our
flora and fauna. So does the Gentleman think that it is proper to introduce a
provision mandating the investors to insure some kind of protection for our
natural resources? The mention of ecological consideration is only in relation

to Congress taking into account conservation, ecological, and developmental
requirements of the natural resources when determining the size of the lands
of the public domain which may be developed, held or acquired. Does not
the
Commissioner think that it is proper to introduce an amendment on this
particular environmental concern?
MR. VILLEGAS: We would welcome a suggested amendment.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Natividad be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I have read much about the criticisms of some economists
that we ruined our economy from the time of the American regime up to this
time
because of free trade. What is the Chairmans opinion on this? Has our
economic ruin been spawned by our loyalty to the economic doctrine of free
trade and
has this maintained our colonial level of economic situation?
MR. VILLEGAS: I do not think the Gentleman should make a sweeping
statement. Definitely, if we go all the way back to the early 1900s and the
way that free
trade started, certainly there were adverse effects of free trade because we
really did not have any incentive to start early enough in manufacturing
since
we were encouraged to be a grower of raw materials. But there were free
trade policies followed as has been explained by other interpellators by
Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, not to mention Hongkong, that led to the
miraculous economic growth in these countries. So it is really very difficult to
make a
generalization that it was only free trade to blame, because other countries
that followed free trade benefitted immensely from that approach.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, may I also add that if one has studied our
economy since we acquired independence, it is actually the reverse. Our
economy
is one of the most protected economies in the world. And those who
advocate protectionism now are usually those who are inefficient, inept and,
in some
cases, corrupt.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So this spread or article about free trade does not, in fact,
have solid basis; is that the Commissioners conclusion?
MR. VILLEGAS: In economics, definitely, there are never dogmas, and that is
the problem with some people who have very closed opinions. They see
things in
black and white. And considering the present circumstances, we can
definitely benefit from more openness to international competition.
MR. NATIVIDAD: More or less, would this Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony sustain this doctrine of free trade?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, I think this Constitution is very silent on that. In fact, if we
accept the amendment of Commissioner Ople, it contains very specific
statements on international trade.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There will be modifications then?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right, yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about this matter of protectionism, how does this
Article treat that subject matter?
MR. VILLEGAS: It is silent.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about on our present policy on floating rate, is this
provision silent also?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. That is a very specific technical decision that our
monetary authority should be given a lot of leeway.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There is no hint whatsoever in this Article on that?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, definitely not.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, with that last interpellation, I move to
close the period of sponsorship and debate on the Article on National
Economy
and Patrimony under Committee Report Nos. 24 and 32.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I move to adjourn the session until
tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning to give the committee members and
the
Commissioners time to prepare the proposed amendments.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Does the Chairman of the Steering Committee agree to
the motion?
MR. BENZONS: Yes, Mr. Vice-President, in order to give the Commissioners a
lot of time within which to prepare their amendments. As a matter of fact, for
those Commissioners who are ready with their written amendments, I
encourage them to submit the amendments to the Chairman or to us in the
Committee.
the session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
It was 4:51 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 57
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Teodoro C. Bacani.
PRAYER
BISHOP BACANI: God our Father, as we begin our work once more today, we
ask You to give us a deeper consciousness of the fact that we are Filipinos,
whom
You have called not only to own our land and our natural resources, but to
protect them not only for the present generation but for our posterity.
Grant, O Lord, that conscious of this, we may enact in this Constitution
provisions that will truly be for the welfare of our people, and it will not only
be class interest that we will promote, but the interest of the entire nation
and of our future generations. We ask You this in the name of Jesus, the
Lord. Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Absent
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present *
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present *
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
Commissioner Ahmad Domocao Alonto is on official mission.

motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
previous session.
motion is approved.
of Business.
motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Guillermo A. Castasus of 127 R. Berroya St., San Vicente, San
Pedro, Laguna, suggesting that in the acquisition of lands, particularly
agricultural lands, and on retaining ownership of landholdings, anyone who
cannot guarantee the lands productivity has no reason for holding on that
land,
much less to acquire more.
Letter from Mr. Luis A. Quibranza of 1564 Labra Street, Caballes Compound,
Guadalupe, Cebu City, transmitting his proposal on National Covenant for
consideration by the Constitutional Commission.
Communication from Ms. Marisse C. Reyes, Correspondence Secretary, Office
of the President of the Philippines, Malacaang, transmitting the following
letters from: Mr. Prudencio S. Serrano, 748 Don M. Marcos Ave., Mati, Davao
Oriental, submitting suggestions for consideration in the Constitutional
Commission; Mr. Eliezer J. Fortunato, 83 Chico St., Quirino District, Quezon
City, proposing a federal form of government; Mr. Ramon Santillan, 303 Ziga
Ave., Tabaco, Albay, suggesting inclusion of a provision in the Constitution
regarding increased pension and government-subsidized health care
program for
elders; and Mr. Troadio Fuentes, Immaculate Conception Parish, Ozamis City,
suggesting the inclusion of religion in the school curriculum.
Communication from Mr. Victor A. de la Cruz and three others, all of Filamer
Christian College, Roxas City, urging the Constitutional Commission to
incorporate in the Constitution the inviolability of the separation of the
Church and State.
Letter from Minister Candu I. Muarip of the Office of Muslim Affairs and
Cultural Communities, N. de la Merced Bldg., corner West and Quezon
Avenue, Quezon
City, submitting a compilation of proposals and resolutions adopted by
Muslim professionals, academicians and scholars, and expressing the hope
that these
proposals which embody the general sentiments and common aspirations of
the people be incorporated in the Constitution.
Communication from Mr. Isabelo F. Magalit of KONFES, 4 Malinis St., U.P.
Village, Diliman, Quezon City, and thirty-nine (39) other signatories,
submitting
a position paper recommending that the text of the 1973 Constitution (Art.
XV, Sec. 8) on the teaching of religion in public schools be retained and
incorporated in the new Constitution.
Eighteen letters with eight thousand eight hundred sixteen (8,816)
signatories with their respective addresses, all seeking to include in the
Constitution
a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from the
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Ishmael F. Mohammed of Suite 4 QB, ODC Bldg., Legaspi
Village, Makati, Metro Manila, seeking the adoption of measures that will give
the
prisoners among the Filipino Muslims the privilege to observe fasting inside
the prison during the month of Rahmadan, exempting them from hard labor
for
thirty days, feeding them at dawn and at sunset and secluding them from
other prisoners of another faith.

Letter from Bishop La Verne D. Mercado, General Secretary of the National
Council of Churches in the Philippines, 879 EDSA, Quezon City, transmitting
the
NCCPs various proposals for the resolution of the problems and issues
besetting our nation today.
Communication from the Misamis Oriental Public School Teachers and
Employees Association, Inc., Cagayan de Oro City, requesting provisions in
the
Constitution prohibiting incumbent elective officials to run for any elective
position unless resigned and that political campaigns be sponsored by the
COMELEC and financed by the parties of the candidates.
Communication with one hundred fifty signatories with their respective
addresses, all seeking to include a referendum/plebiscite on the issue of
statehood
U.S.A. in a proclamation calling for local elections.
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Vicente A. Galang, Presidential Staff Director, Malacaang
transmitting Resolution No. 3 of the Antique Small Landowners Association,
requesting the Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the Constitution
the specific number of hectares of land a private person or corporation may
possess.

Continuation
MR. RAMA: I move that we take up for consideration the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony in the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we proceed to consider on
Second Reading the proposed Resolution on the National Economy and
Patrimony?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, in accordance with our procedure to enable the
Commissioners who desire to present amendments to have a conference
with the
Committee Chairman and Committee members, I move that we suspend the
session.
It was 10:02 a.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized to
present amendments.
May I propose an amendment to Section 1. May I also make of note that I

have consulted the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony
concerning this
proposed amendment to Section 1, and the text that I will read is the
negotiated result, subject to confirmation by the Chairman of the Committee.
It reads
as follows: Section 1. The State shall develop a self-reliant, DYNAMIC and
independent national economy. The goals of the national economy are a
more
equitable distribution of income and wealth, a sustained increase in the
amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the
Filipino people . . .
There is a recommendation to drop the subsequent phrase and sentence
because these will be addressed later in the second paragraph. May I
continue reading
the text: . . . AND AN EXPANDING PRODUCTIVITY AS THE KEY TO RAISING THE
STANDARDS OF LIVING FOR ALL ESPECIALLY THE POOR.
THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH POLICIES THAT PROMOTE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIALIZATION AND FULL EMPLOYMENT BASED ON SOUND
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM
THROUGH INDUSTRIES THAT MAKE FULL USE OF THE NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT IN BOTH HUMAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND WHICH ARE
FULLY COMPETITIVE IN BOTH THE DOMESTIC
AND EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS. HOWEVER, THE STATE SHALL PROTECT
FILIPINO ENTERPRISES AGAINST UNFAIR COMPETITION.
That is a Committee amendment to my amendment. The text goes on to
read: IN THE PURSUIT OF THESE GOALS all economic sectors AND REGIONS
shall be given
optimum opportunity to develop and a broader-based ownership of private
enterprises, INCLUDING BOTH THE CORPORATE AND THE COOPERATIVE OR
SOCIAL SECTORS
shall be encouraged.
May I request the Committees consideration.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Monsod will give the response.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee is prepared to accept the
amendments of Commissioner Ople, but may we suggest two deletions. One
is the word
NATIONAL because the sentence that the Committee itself suggested,
which is THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FILIPINO ENTERPRISES AGAINST UNFAIR
FOREIGN
COMPETITION already covers the idea of the word NATIONAL. Second, in
the sentence where it says INCLUDING BOTH THE CORPORATE AND THE
COOPERATIVE OR
SOCIAL SECTORS, we believe that many people may not understand what
OR SOCIAL SECTORS mean. However, we are prepared to accept the word
COOPERATIVE or
say SIMILAR ENTERPRISES shall be encouraged, if it is acceptable to the
Commissioner.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the Committee,
provided it is understood that in omitting the words NATIONAL before
INDUSTRIALIZATION, it is still the intent of this Commission, particularly of
the Committee, that Filipino entrepreneurs and leaders of business and
industry, and not any other group, shall lead in the industrialization of the
country which is stated here as a goal.
MR. MONSOD: That is why we used the words Filipino enterprises.
MR. OPLE: Yes, in that context, I accept the amendment, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Did the Commissioner read the word DYNAMIC?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it is proposed to be inserted between the modifier selfreliant and the phrase independent national economy.
Does the Committee want a brief explanation for this proposal?
MR. VILLEGAS: Please proceed.
MR. OPLE: There are two contrasting examples of a self-reliant and
independent national economy. Let us say, Taiwan or Korea epitomizes the
first type it
is self-reliant and independent, but it is dynamic. The other group of selfreliant and independent economies that I have in mind, by way of contrast, is
Burma. Burma is almost an economic autarky by policy, that is to say, until
recently when it decided to join the rest of the world economy. It is static,
not dynamic
So, you can have a self-reliant and independent national economy which is
almost static and stagnant I am for inserting this modifier of DYNAMIC to
insure
that self-reliance and independence will generate not less, but more
economic dynamism in its interaction, especially with the rest of the world
economic
environment.
It is in that sense that I made the proposal, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, it seems that DYNAMIC is an
unnecessary surplusage because the very last sentence, for example, of the
same paragraph
speaks of EXPANDING PRODUCTIVITY AS THE KEY TO RAISING THE
STANDARDS OF LIVING FOR ALL ESPECIALLY THE POOR, and then the
following paragraph further
amplifies or explains the dynamism that is required of the national economy.
Hence, it would seem to be unnecessary.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I will not press for the adoption of this
amendment if it is understood that the vision of a self-reliant and
independent
national economy that leads this paragraph refers to a state of economy that
is dynamic and not static; then I am willing to have this word omitted. In
other words, I accept the committee amendment if it is a committee
proposal.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, in other words, Commissioner Ople is
amenable to the suggestion that we delete the word DYNAMIC, but with the
understanding
that the meaning of dynamism, insofar as the national economy is
concerned, as it is proposed and elaborated on this morning, would be stated
in the
record.
MR. OPLE: The Gentleman has described exactly my position.
The Committee would like to clear up certain expressions used in the
proposed amendment to Section 1. For example, with regard to the phrase
EXPANDING
PRODUCTIVITY, does this refer to all sectors, like agricultural, industrial,
commercial sectors of productivity?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. Many economic theories, regardless of their
ideological commitments or lack of depth, barely converge on the perception
that productivity is what makes the difference between a mediocre nation

and a highly successful nation in economic terms.
Productivity in Japan and in the United States is about 20 times higher than
the productivity in the Philippines. This tends to be reflected in the level
of wages and incomes. That is the reason why I think it is very important that
we establish productivity as a national goal, as a key to raising the
standards of living for all but especially for the poor and the under-privileged.
My other question refers to the Commissioners reference to industrialization
in relation to agrarian reform. Is the Commissioner thinking in terms of
anchoring the industrialization on the agrarian economy and agrarian
reform?
MR. OPLE: Yes. The expectation, Madam President, is that agrarian reform will
release tremendous new forces and energies and also activate idle capital
that is locked up in an antiquated feudal system. These forces, therefore, will
actually promote the industrialization of the country, restructure the
social and economic framework, thereby achieving equity through social
justice. At the same time, the process of industrialization is facilitated.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, this particular phrase is practically or
substantially a transposition of what would have been Section 9, proposed by
the
Commissioner in the Article on Social Justice.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. The gist of the first two sections I
presented to the Committee as new amendments actually had been merged
into Section 1,
with the original formulation that Commissioner Suarez himself introduced in
a recent meeting of the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
What about the Commissioners explanation of the use of the phrase THE
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT IN BOTH HUMAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES? Can
the Commissioner
please elaborate?
This supports the self-reliant and independent national economy set out in
the first sentence of Section 1 in the sense that national endowment means
what
God has given us and this includes the human resource potential of the
country. It also speaks of a commitment to put the process of
industrialization and
modernization in the hands of Filipino talent because we are called upon to
make full use of the national endowment in both human and natural
resources.
Originally, the reference to natural resources was industries that would
optimize the use of indigenous resources. But I think it has now been
transformed into a better statement in the sense that the THE NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT which comprises all of those now appears here as a key
clause.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, would Commissioner Ople favor the
deletion of the words THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT, so that the lines will
read, INDUSTRIES
THAT MAKE FULL USE OF BOTH HUMAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES, for
simplicity? The Commissioners explanation states that the national
endowment would cover both
human and natural resources.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but then it also helps fix human and natural resources in a
frame, which I think is possessive, nationalistic, because we speak of both of
these as THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT.
MR. SARMIENTO: So, will the Commissioner agree to the deletion of the
words THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT?
MR. OPLE: If the Committee makes an amendment out of that, I would not
shed a few tears over it.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, since the Committee is prepared to use
Commissioner Oples proposal as the basis for drafting Section 1, there is
need to
clarify the terms being used here. May I refer the Commissioner to the clause
AND WHICH ARE FULLY COMPETITIVE IN BOTH THE DOMESTIC AND
EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENTS. When the Commissioner refers to EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENTS, I suppose he is referring to industries of other countries. Is
our understanding
correct, Madam President?
MR. OPLE: Not exactly, Madam President. When we say that these industries
are fully competitive in both the domestic and external environments, we
want to
emphasize again self-reliance and independence as the attributes of
industries that should be supported for this purpose. Let us begin with the
domestic
environment. If they are not competitive, they will penalize the consumers
with shabby products that cost too much. I think we are very concerned that
the
industries that will become the engines of the industrialization and
modernization of this country should be fair to our consuming public. They
should be
able to offer products that are competitive in quality and price, since virtually
under protected conditions our consumers have no choice. They can be
paying for a shirt which costs 50 percent less in Taiwan but whose quality is
higher. And so it refers, first of all, to the protection of the consuming
public relative to the producers. Secondly, it also refers to the ability of our
industries to earn foreign exchange, where they are in a position to do
so, by providing high quality, high performance, low-cost products in the
markets of the world, where the opportunities are available only to those
who are
prepared to take advantage of them.
MR. SUAREZ: That is the meaning the proponent attributes to the phrase
external environments.
MR. SUAREZ: The last clarification question would be with respect to the
protection of Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition. Although
this is a Committee suggestion, would the proponent be able to give
examples of what would constitute unfair foreign competition?
MR. OPLE: Let me start with a really critical problem. The dumping of excess
goods in the Philippine market is a form of unfair competition. For example,
when multinationals overcharge their Filipino partners in terms of royalties
for some of their dubious technologies, that is a form of unfair competition.
When they deny access to technology to their Filipino partners, that is highly
discriminatory and, I think, unfair competition.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized to amend the amendment.
MS. AQUINO: Would the proponent be amenable to an amendment to his
amendment?
MR. OPLE: With the greatest pleasure, if I like the amendment.
MS. AQUINO: I would propose to delete the word UNFAIR and substitute it
with the words CONTROL AND IMPORT COMPETITION. Madam President, any
competition,
any foreign competition, is by itself unfair and unequal competition. Any
foreign company that seeks to operate in the Philippine economy,
considering the
very small size of the Philippine economy and the relative level of
underdevelopment, would, by itself, pose great danger to the possibilities of
full
development of that local industry. A small company based in Japan, or
Korea, or the United States, conceding that it may not be nonmonopolistic in
their
country, once it begins to operate in our country is, by itself, a threat or a
danger to the possibility of growth.
MR. OPLE: I will put this matter to the Committee which introduced this
amendment to my amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Will Commissioner Aquino kindly restate her proposed
amendment?
MS. AQUINO: My amendment would read: HOWEVER, THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT THE LOCAL INDUSTRIES FROM FOREIGN CONTROL AND IMPORT
COMPETITION. It would, in
effect, delete the word UNFAIR on the premise that any foreign competition
is already by itself unfair and unequal competition.
MR. VILLEGAS: I regret that we will not be able to accept that amendment
because it is constitutionalizing a specific situation that may not last forever.
I think it is also unjust to think that Filipino enterprises, even assuming that
temporarily they are infants and they have to be protected, which is the
constitutional horizon, will forever and ever be needing protection. For
example, I mentioned beer on another occasion. It would be ridiculous to say
that
San Miguel beer needs protection from other industries abroad. So, although
we admit that there are legitimate infants that should be protected and that
can continue because new infants will arise in the local industry, I do not
think we should include in the Constitution a statement that all imports
would
constitute unfair competition to local industries.
MS. AQUINO: With all due deference to the position of the Committee and to
Chairman Villegas, whom I believe has no peers in that field, the concern
here
is that there are certain givens that we have to assume one is that we are
an agricultural economy and unless there is complete and committed
cuddling
from the State and the government, we cannot transcend the limitations of
an agricultural economy as evidenced now by our stagnant economy. My
concern is
that we cannot hope or we cannot even attempt to achieve a situation
whereby we can gear up the cycle of the development of domestic surplus
accumulation
and investment unless we protect the local industry and market from foreign
intrusion, and here I refer to import competition.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: What I am saying is that, if we allow untrammeled import
competition, we are just institutionalizing the decided advantage of the
foreign
competitors already in the market.
MR. VILLEGAS: We are not allowing untrammeled imports. Precisely, there is
this provision that, in legitimate and meritorious cases, the State shall
protect Filipino enterprises. But to make a sweeping statement that all
Filipino enterprises shall forever and ever be protected from imports, I think,
is
unwarranted.
MR. OPLE: The Committee has acquired jurisdiction over this amendment
now in the sense that they have accepted it except for some last minute
proposed
minor changes and, therefore, I submit to the wishes of the Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: If Commissioner Aquino insists on the amendment to the
amendment, we can throw it to the body.
MR. OPLE: But before we consider that, Madam President, may I just say that
the amendment to the amendment introduced by the Committee itself and
which
reads: HOWEVER, THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FILIPINO ENTERPRISES
AGAINST UNFAIR FOREIGN COMPETITION, looks to me like it is an umbrella
statement for
protecting Filipino enterprises against all manner of unfair competition, the
exact forms of which may emerge later with greater clarity according to
dynamic changes in the internal economic situation. But I do not put the
regulation of imports as being beyond the pale of this protective umbrella,
depending on the changing situations, meaning, Commissioner Aquinos own
concern may already be subsumed actually in this sentence which, if I am
allowed
to read again, is as follows: HOWEVER, THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FILIPINO

ENTERPRISES AGAINST UNFAIR FOREIGN COMPETITION.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Bacani.
BISHOP BACANI: I think the position of the Committee can be summed up in
three sentences. First, that we are committed to the protection of Filipino
enterprises. Second, we are against unfair competition with Filipino
enterprises, but we also wish to assert that not each and every importation
constitutes unfair competition.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I am assuming certain givens here, and by
that I mean, no. 1, we have a very weak local industry that needs more than
adequate
and decisive protection by the State and the government. No. 2, the basic
structures and framework of the local industry are wanting, sorely wanting,
in
terms of built-in and inherent machineries and framework that would allow it
to fully develop. At this point, I am disturbed by the reluctance of the
Committee. Apparently, there is a consensus on that trend already. But I am
concerned and disturbed by the reluctance of the Committee to finally
address
the issue and decisively settle it in this provision.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the way the Commissioner puts it, she is
going to prejudice millions and millions of consumers who may deserve lower
prices
and better qualities in instances when the infants never grow up. There is no
questioning the legitimacy of the infant industry argument. But and we
would like to put this on record the phrase unfair foreign competition
also applies to situations when a certain local industry is still in a fledgling
stage and it would be unfair to subject it to competition with the Goliaths of
international trade. And so, that is definitely part of this phrase unfair
foreign competition. Even if the foreigners do not practice predatory pricing,
even if there is no dumping, there are situations when we have to protect
local industries when they are legitimate infants. But if after 30 years an
enterprise still claims to be an infant, we have prima facie evidence of child
retardation. That is exactly what we would like to prevent for child
retardates in Philippine industry to adversely affect 55 million consumers
today and
70 million consumers in the year 2000.
MS. AQUINO: May I be clarified on the contemplation of the phrase unfair
foreign competition?
MR. VILLEGAS: We have enumerated them. First, in situations where

industries are still fledgling or are still legitimate infants, they definitely
should be
protected against imports from countries that are already very advanced.
Second, dumping is unfair competition, and there may be other areas of
unfair
competition which Congress will enumerate, and precisely these are so broad
that there can be many other instances when fair competition can be proved
on a
case-to-case basis.
MS. AQUINO: What does the Committee contemplate in terms of measures to
address this problem?
MR. VILLEGAS: There are many ways of protecting industries tariffs, giving
them quantitative restrictions, prohibiting the imports of certain items
completely.
MS. AQUINO: Essentially import control.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just add that the intent of the Article
is to protect the efficient Filipino producer or the infant Filipino producer.
The intent is not to protect the market. There is a difference, Madam
President. When we protect a market, we necessarily have to go into import
controls,
licensing or we may even have to go into price controls because we are
protecting a market.
This is what happened early in our republic, and that is not what is
contemplated. It is contemplated that legitimate, efficient Filipino enterprises
should be protected but there is no guarantee. They should not be insulated
from any kind of competition in the market because that leads to a lot of
things we know are bad for the country. Import controls resulted in graft and
corruption; it resulted in enterprises that survived for many years on
subsidy from the consumers; it resulted in companies that are not economic
in scale, and are inefficient after 20, 30 years. The people are the ones who
pay for this protection on a permanent basis. Protecting the market also
results in monopolies and monopoly profits, Madam President. If we are
going to
protect a market for certain terms that are engaged in monopoly prices, then
we must also have price controls, we must also make sure that the State can
nationalize these industries if they are inefficient or have many monopoly
profits. Otherwise, we are penalizing the rest of the country.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I have no quarrel with healthy competition

among and between Filipino entrepreneurs for so long as it is not cutthroat
and it
is not monopolistic. My concern is the decided advantage that is given to a
foreign corporation the minute it intrudes into the local industry.
My amendment reads: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FILIPINO ENTERPRISES
FROM FOREIGN CONTROL AND IMPORT COMPETITION. On the basis of the
clarification, I am
willing to delete the word import. I would also seek to delete UNFAIR and
substitute it with the word CONTROL. I submit, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: UNFAIR FOREIGN COMPETITION is the exact phrase.
MS. AQUINO: Yes. Delete the word UNFAIR and after the word FOREIGN
insert the word CONTROL. So, my amendment should read: THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT THE
FILIPINO ENTERPRISES FROM FOREIGN CONTROL AND COMPETITION.
MR. MONSOD: Does the proponent realize that when she says FOREIGN
CONTROL AND COMPETITION, she is also saying foreign competition which
is really
protecting the market? This means protecting the market rather than
protecting the producer. That is the meaning of the proponents amendment,
Madam
President.
MS. AQUINO: There is a very clear reference to Filipino enterprises, which is
direct . . . in strict linguistic contemplation is local industries.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. But the phrase FROM FOREIGN CONTROL AND
COMPETITION really says protecting the market.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept Commissioner Aquinos
proposed amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: It is not accepted by the Committee, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: How does the Committee propose to deal with this?
Commissioner Villegas, may the Chair be enlightened. There is an open letter
addressed to the Commission, which has been published, and I would just
like
to be informed if this Section 1 now, as proposed by Commissioner Ople and,
more or less, accepted by the Committee, answers to some degree the

questions
proposed in this open letter for industrialization, protectionism, and
economic nationalism?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Madam President. In our deliberation in the Committee
this morning, we had fully considered the specific proposal. The thinking of
the
Committee is that we have definitely included all the considerations that
were suggested. This very last phrase which talks about the State protecting
Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition, we think, addresses
frontally one of the issues brought up in this specific communication. The
reference to industrialization, which is to balance agricultural development
and agrarian reform, also addresses the issue of industrializing the
Philippines. So, it is the thinking of the Committee that we have fully
considered all the issues brought up in that communication, Madam
President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask for a suspension of the session for
two minutes to compose these differences.
It was 11:17 a.m.
Please clear the session hall of non-Commissioners.
Section 1, as proposed, as amended by Commissioner Ople, has been
accepted with corresponding amendments offered by the Committee. May
we know from the
Floor Leader what decision we shall now take. Shall we vote on Section 1
without prejudice to accepting other amendments?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I make this suggestion? There is a
motion that we go to a caucus. But before going to caucus, may I suggest
that we
hear, first of all, the amendments to Section 1.
MR. OPLE: The number of amendments is actually overstated. I do not know

of any amendment other than that proposed by Commissioner Aquino with
respect to
the sentence, which is a committee amendment to my amendment, and
which reads: HOWEVER, THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FILIPINO ENTERPRISES
AGAINST UNFAIR
FOREIGN COMPETITION. Other than that, I do not know of any other
proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask the Committee if there are other amendments
to Section 1?
MR. RAMA: There are other amendments to the amendment, Madam
President. May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized to present an
amendment to the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will allow the Commissioners who have amendments to
Section 1 to submit their amendments so as to get the reaction of the
Committee; or
in other words, to give time to the Committee to deliberate on them.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have a few amendments on the proposed
Section 1. On line 9, before income, I seek to insert the word
OPPORTUNITIES and add
a comma (,) after.
MR. VILLEGAS: This is line 9.
MR. DAVIDE: Section 1 of the Ople amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, does Commissioner Ople accept that
amendment?
MR. OPLE: . . . distribution of OPPORTUNITIES, income and wealth?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. OPLE: This is a committee formulation. My only amendment here
consisted of deleting the phrase full employment of human, physical and
technological
resources.
MR. DAVIDE: So, I submit it to the Committee since this is really a

reformulation of the entire Section 1.
MR. OPLE: Yes. May I suggest then that the Committee respond to that.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the amendment is accepted.
MR. DAVIDE: On the second to the last line of the first paragraph, I seek to
delete the words raising the and substitute the same with the following:
MAXIMUM ECONOMIC GROWTH AND RISING, so it will read, EXPANDING
PRODUCTIVITY AS THE KEY TO MAXIMUM ECONOMIC GROWTH AND RISING
STANDARDS OF LIVING FOR ALL.
Then substitute the word poor with UNDERPRIVILEGED.
MR. OPLE: The idea of MAXIMUM ECONOMIC GROWTH is acceptable, but I
would ask the Committee to help me look for a more suitable modifier to
ECONOMIC
GROWTH and MAXIMUM.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, there is a big difference between RISING
STANDARDS OF LIVING and RAISING THE STANDARDS OF LIVING. I think
the import of
Commissioner Ople in using the word RAISING is wise and advisable as
against the use of the phrase RISING STANDARDS OF LIVING.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we submit that RISING is better than
RAISING, because it is a continuing economic target. The standard of living
keeps on
rising; we do not just raise it from the level now.
MR. SUAREZ: True, but the significance of the use of the term RAISING is to
elevate this underprivileged class by improving their standard of living. I
do not know if the sense of the Committee coincides with the sentiments and
thinking of Commissioner Ople in this regard, but that is how we read this
particular phrase RAISING THE STANDARDS OF LIVING against the phrase
RISING STANDARDS OF LIVING.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the idea of economic growth in terms of real
GNP growth is already provided in that clause which says: a sustained
increase in
the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of
the Filipino people . . . and, therefore, to repeat economic growth in the
context of productivity might be a redundancy. Moreover, RAISING THE
STANDARDS OF LIVING is a more active formulation than RISING
STANDARDS OF LIVING.
In that respect, I support the views of the Committee as expressed by
Commissioner Suarez.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I will not insist on the second amendment. I
will insist only on the first.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask Commissioner Ople if instead of the words
STANDARDS OF LIVING he will be amenable to using LEVELS OF LIVING,
because even the
poorest may have very high standards of living which may not be attainable
and which may just lead to frustration. I think what the honorable
Commissioner
wants is RAISING LEVELS OF LIVING.
MR. OPLE: Yes, in this context they are synonymous and it is a choice, I
suppose, for the Committee between standards and LEVELS. I would have
no
objection to replacing standards with LEVELS.
MR. DAVIDE: So, may we know the reaction of the Committee on the first
amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: Is the Gentleman referring to MAXIMUM ECONOMIC
GROWTH?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: We hesitate to accept that because it is not the objective of
the Article on National Economy and Patrimony to maximize economic
growth;
besides, this has been an error of past development programs.
I think the reference here to a sustained increase, as mentioned by
Commissioner Ople, in the amount of goods and services produced by the
nation for the
benefit of the Filipino people would capture better the real objective of the
economy.
MR. DAVIDE: In short, that particular phrase would refer to the achievement
of maximum economic growth.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: I will not insist on that clarification. But what about substituting
the word poor with UNDERPRIVILEGED?
MR. OPLE: I would have no difficulty about that, Madam President.
MR. VILLEGAS: I would just harmonize the word with all the other references
in the Article on Social Justice and I think this will be more a matter of
style.
MR. DAVIDE: On the second paragraph, I seek for the deletion of the words
establish policies that so the first line will read: THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE
NATIONAL . . .
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment and I hope the Committee does, too.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have that again, Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: It is just the deletion, Madam President, of the words establish
policies that. So, it will read: THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIALIZATION.
MR. OPLE: The policy is actually a vow of courtesy to the future Congress.
But I think the elimination of this phrase actually strengthens the paragraph.
So, I accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: That is the principal idea.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just a reminder: the Committee had suggested that we drop
the qualifying word NATIONAL because it is already subsumed under
Philippine
enterprises.
MR. OPLE: I had accepted that amendment in the context of the additional
last sentence which is a guarantee that the State shall protect Filipino
enterprises against unfair foreign competition.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how will the sentence read now?

MR. DAVIDE: It will read: THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION,
FULL EMPLOYMENT BASED ON SOUND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT . . .
MR. DAVIDE: On the fourth line, after the word full, insert AND EFFICIENT,
and delete the phrase the national endowment in both. So, it will read:
through industries that make full AND EFFICIENT use of human and natural
resources. . .
MR. OPLE: I have no objection, if the Committee agrees.
MR. VILLEGAS: The amendment is accepted.
MR. DAVIDE: I would make a reservation for amendments to Section 2 later.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized
to present an amendment to the amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I have a very simple amendment involving
the deletion of one word, and that is the word fully on the second to the
last
line of paragraph 2, which modifies competitive.
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment, and I hope the Committee does, too.
MR. VILLEGAS: We do, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
MR. PADILLA: On the next line, will the proponent agree to substitute
external environments with FOREIGN MARKETS so that the line will read:
competitive in both the domestic and FOREIGN MARKETS.
MR. OPLE: I would not object, Madam President, to making the meaning more
precise unless the Committee contemplates domestic and external
environments as
being able to encompass a wider range of factors than markets in which
competitiveness shall be assured. May we hear from the Committee which
has acquired
jurisdiction over the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Chairman say?
MR. VILLEGAS: We accept the amendment. FOREIGN MARKETS would really
be synonymous with external environments.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Garcia be recognized
to present an amendment.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, actually, the basic thoughts that I want to
incorporate have already been incorporated in the amendment presented on
the
floor; so it could simply be an alternative formulation. Utilizing the original
draft, Commissioner Gascon and I feel that it could be strengthened by
putting after the phrase The State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy the following: FOUNDED ON THE EFFECTIVE
CONTROL BY
FILIPINOS, OF THE ECONOMY AND OF INDUSTRIES VITAL TO THEIR NATIONAL
INTEREST. That will be in the first sentence.
MR. OPLE: Will the Gentleman kindly repeat the amendment?
MR. GARCIA: FOUNDED ON THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL BY FILIPINOS, OF THE
ECONOMY AND OF INDUSTRIES VITAL TO THEIR NATIONAL INTEREST.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a sentence of the Committee. So, what does the
Committee say?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it is a Committee formulation and, therefore, I would like to
refer the matter to the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Committee ready to give its reaction to this proposed
amendment of Commissioner Garcia.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may we address a few questions to

Commissioner Garcia?
MR. SARMIENTO: May we know the meaning of VITAL TO THEIR NATIONAL
INTEREST?
MR. GARCIA: Basically, we want an economy where Filipinos are in full
command. At the same time, there are certain industries that later on we will
see in
some of the other articles which we would want to be reserved to Filipino
control. The definition of that would depend, therefore, on enabling
legislation
to be enacted by Congress.
MR. SARMIENTO: May we know also the meaning of EFFECTIVE AND FULL
CONTROL?
MR. GARCIA: No, we took out FULL. EFFECTIVE CONTROL means that the
decisions are in the hands of Filipinos who are operating with the national
interest
in mind.
MR. SUAREZ: I take it that the Gentleman wants the effective control by
Filipinos emphasized.
MR. SUAREZ: But after Filipinos, the Gentleman added OF THE ECONOMY
AND OF INDUSTRIES VITAL TO THEIR NATIONAL INTEREST which we feel
may already be
included in the previous phrases like self-reliant and independent national
economy. So, I wonder whether we could just put a period (.) after the word
FILIPINOS and then forget about the rest of the phrase such that the
sentence would read: The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent
national economy FOUNDED ON THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL BY FILIPINOS.
Would that be adequate to convey the Gentlemans thoughts on the matter?
MR. GARCIA: Of course, I feel that it would be more emphatic if we
underscore the vehicles by which this control is to be exercised, basically
through the
economic control of the industries. But if the Committee is made to
understand that this would include both the economy itself and the economic
decisions,
economic policy and the industries themselves, then I would accept this
amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS: All the how-tos how to make sure that this effective
control will be exercised, for one, will be developed in the subsequent
sections of
this Article, like the 60-40 scheme or certain areas are limited only to
Filipinos. So, I think that would be sufficient.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: We accept the amendment.
I would like to ask the honorable Commissioner Ople regarding the third
paragraph broader-based ownership of private enterprises including both
the
corporate and the cooperative or social sectors shall be encouraged. This, I
understand, has been accepted by the Committee.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President, the Committee accepted the phrase with
just one modification: the phrase or social was deleted on the ground that
there
is no familiarity as yet with the meaning of social sectors.
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: So, the provision reads: including both the corporate and the
cooperative sectors shall be encouraged.
MR. VILLEGAS: There is a final wording that we would like to read: including
both corporate ENTERPRISES AND COOPERATIVES OR SIMILAR
ORGANIZATIONS.
MR. OPLE: This, I think, captures the essence of the original. So, I am willing
to accept that amendment of the Committee.
MR. GARCIA: The reason I ask is that if I utilize the original draft, after the
second sentence, the third sentence has a phrase which states: in the
attainment of these goals. I suggest that after goals, insert the phrase:
THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF THE NATION,
FOSTER ECONOMIC
NATIONALISM, AND ENCOURAGE BROADER-BASED OWNERSHIP AND
MANAGEMENT OF ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES.
MR. VILLEGAS: Those objectives were incorporated in the second paragraph

which states: The State shall promote industrialization and full
employment.
MR. GARCIA: So, those two other goals are accepted. Therefore, the phrase
that I would then request to be included would be BROADER-BASED
OWNERSHIP AND
MANAGEMENT OF ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES.
MR. OPLE: That is acceptable to me, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Where will this be inserted, Commissioner Garcia?
MR. GARCIA: In the third paragraph.
MR. VILLEGAS: Will Commissioner Garcia answer a specific question?
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: How would the Gentleman define broader management?
MR. GARCIA. Basically, this would mean the participation of the different
sectors involved in production. As I mentioned earlier in our discussion when
I
was requested to present the alternative vision, this would be flexible and
would develop as economic development progresses. The forms would vary
according to our stage of development.
MR. OPLE: Is Commissioner Garcia suggesting a form of participatory
management?
MR. GARCIA: Yes. In other words, we open the field to further development
where those who are members of production or those who cooperate or
collaborate
in production become participants more and more in decisions which
somehow affect their lives.
MR. ROMULO: I think we rejected that in the labor section, and we have left
the participation or methods of participation up to Congress. As far as we are
concerned, ownership implies management; and we do not see why we have
to expand that notion.
MR. OPLE: I am in favor of workers participation at the level of the

enterprise. I spoke about work councils, but that is my opinion and not the
Committees.
MR. ROMULO: As far as the acceptable concept is concerned, we have
accepted that in the labor section under the Article on Social Justice.
MR. VILLEGAS: And the inclusion of the word cooperative would already
introduce cooperative organization.
MR. GARCIA. I would like to insist that the importance of a broader-based
ownership and management is essential. The fact is that we have different
social
sectors that are owners, for example, of a particular enterprise, they must
not just be consulted but also be participants in charting the direction of
this endeavor.
MR. OPLE: Commissioner Garcia is not thinking in a European concept of
codetermination.
MR. GARCIA: No, as I said, there are many different stages and levels
according to the state of economic development.
MR. OPLE: To reassure the Committee because I have already accepted it and
we are now negotiating with the Committee, will the Gentleman give an
example of
a broader-based management in addition to the ownership of economic
enterprises?
MR. GARCIA: One very concrete example right now we actually have it in
our own experience is the peoples economic councils in particular areas
which
help chart the course of economic development in a particular zone. I think
that is part of the thrust of the Ministry of Trade.
MR. OPLE: That is different from management of an economic enterprise.
MR. GARCIA: The other area, for example, is a newspaper business. As I
mentioned in our caucus, a newspaper, rather than being in the hands of one
family
or one owner, should be in the hands of the people who produce that
newspaper. Therefore, they should participate in the management and in
charting the
direction and the policies.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino seeks recognition.
MS. AQUINO: I would only like clarification on the concept of management.

Does that take the nature of codetermination in corporate management,
corporate
planning and corporate acquisition of property, for example?
MR. GARCIA: Not necessarily. The point I want to establish is that we leave
flexibility; we leave room for development so that when the organized
associations of the different social sectors are more ready, they can be more
willing participants in this effort. Then they could be incorporated. I feel
that this provides room for that form of development.
MS. AQUINO: Without preempting judgment on that proposal, could this not
be best resolved in the tenor of the deliberations in the Committee on Social
Justice, but without prohibiting and without positively giving it compulsory
constitutional mandate, the process shall open the dynamics of an evolution;
meaning, for so long as we do not make an explicit prohibition, it is part and
parcel of the dynamics of economic growth and processes?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, the Committee believes that this was fully
discussed in the labor section and, thus, we have a provision that the labor
sector
shall also participate in policy- and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
We believe that that is a basic, conceptual decision made by the
Commission, and all the ideas can be included in the phrase as provided by
law.
MR. GARCIA: Regarding the discussion yesterday, I was made to understand
that the concept of a mixed economy is acceptable. Therefore, I would like to
request that the social sector idea be retained in the draft presented as an
amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS: I second the suggestion in that the phrase is so innovative,
and that it can lend itself to all sorts of interpretation. That is why we
thought it is more appropriate to mention one of the examples the
Commissioner cited so that people can immediately have a basis for
understanding what
social sectors may mean.
MR. GARCIA: I would simply like to state the fact that yesterday when we
were discussing both state and private, I think this polarization and
dichotomy
could perhaps be understood when we also recognized the fact that this
sector could exist. In fact it does exist the cooperative or the social sector.
We
can further clarify this in the experience of our people as more communal
forms of ownership and participation evolve.
MR. VILLEGAS: The inclusion of cooperatives already opens the way for other
types of social aggrupations. Since the Constitution has to be as clear as
possible, we thought it would be better to include the Gentlemans
explanation in the record and to say that similar organizations mean
cooperatives and
other forms of aggrupations.
MR. GARCIA: With a very popular experience of, let us say, newspaper
ownership . . . let us say, Malaya, a cooperative ownership, social ownership.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GARCIA: Does the Gentleman not think that recognizing it, therefore, will
encourage such forms of broader-based ownership and the participation of
people in economic enterprises?
MR. VILLEGAS: Precisely, that is a cooperative; so it is already included in the
use of the word cooperative.
MR. GARCIA: I feel that the word social would really give it a much broader
acceptability since we recognize that fact.
MR. OPLE: Would the Committee have any difficulty about saying
ENTERPRISES AND COOPERATIVES OR SIMILAR SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS?
MR. VILLEGAS: An organization means social. But if the Gentleman wants to
be redundant. . .
MR. OPLE: I think that will help accommodate. Commissioner Garcias
concerns.
MR. VILLEGAS: To have a more specific adjective, is the Gentleman referring
to not-for-profit organizations?
MR. GARCIA: Not necessarily. For me, it is the form of economic organization.
The problem here is when one uses the word private, as I said yesterday,
normally it tends to become very exclusive those who are big and those
who are strong; whereas, when one uses the word social, the intent is of a
much
broader base the association of workers, the association of peasants. It
involves a much broader understanding and it is simply enlarging that and
recognizing that as a fact of economic life and encouraging, therefore, that
sector so that the conflict between private and State does not remain.
MR. OPLE: Has the Committee accepted the alternative wording of

COOPERATIVES OR SIMILAR SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS?
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee still hesitates, regretfully, to accept the
amendment because it is still too ambiguous.
MR. RODRIGO: May I comment on that? Let us not forget that we are drafting
a Constitution which shall be submitted to all our people, the electorate, for
ratification. So, as much as possible, let us use words understood by the
common man. Even I would not understand the definite scope of social
organization, a social organization. So, let us please stick to words
understood by most people.
MR. GARCIA: By the context of economic organization, when we say social,
it means that it is not limited to a private individual or a private concern
that very often tends to exclude a very great part of our society, to exclude
the majority. That is why when one uses the word social, he is referring to
collective communal organizations; it can be a trade union; it can be an
association in a specific neighborhood; or it can be an association of owners
of a
newspaper because they are the workers of that concern.
Therefore, rather than what I consider to be limiting in the connotation of
private, we are expanding it to include a broader base of society.
I am sorry if I disagree with that statement because I think ang panlipunang
kilusan should mean that people understand it, especially in the economic
context we are referring to or speaking about.
MR. OPLE: The Committee, having the jurisdiction, is now invited to settle the
matter.
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee is of the opinion that a more understandable
qualifier is SIMILAR COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS because the word
collective is
more appropriate in economic enterprises.
MR. GARCIA: It is acceptable, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Then it is SIMILAR COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS.
MR. OPLE: I think that is as good as SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS.

MR. VILLEGAS: It is acceptable, yes. Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: The committee report as well as the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Ople speaks of private enterprises. But it seems that
Commissioner
Garcia would change the word private to ECONOMIC. I object to that
change.
MR. VILLEGAS: We will retain the word private.
MR. PADILLA: Probably, as a matter of form, the words both the and and
the be eliminated so that the line would read: private enterprises, including
corporate enterprises, cooperatives and other . . .
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment which improves upon this sentence,
Madam President.
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, it is past twelve oclock. I move for a
suspension of the session and that we go to a caucus after lunch to consider
all
the amendments proposed by the Commissioners. We suggest that the
Secretariat type all the amendments for our consideration.
It was 12:07 p.m.

MR. RAMA: May we call on Commissioner Villacorta to be recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I move that the record of todays caucus
be incorporated in the Record of the Constitutional Commission. *
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: We would like to continue the consideration of the Article on
There are no more registered speakers to amend Section 1, so I move that
we take a vote on Section 1.
THE PRESIDENT: May we proceed to take a vote on Section 1, Mr. Chairman?
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, we would like Commissioner Ople to read
the full text.
MR. OPLE: Before I proceed to read the text, may I acknowledge the fact that
the proponents of these amendments include the following: Commissioners
Natividad, de los Reyes and Maambong. Amendments to the amendments
from Commissioners Bacani, Bennagen, Garcia, Gascon, Azcuna and Davide
were
incorporated. Again, with respect to the last parts of the text that I will read,
the proponents are Commissioner Garcia and the Committee itself.
So, the text reads as follows: The State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY FILIPINOS. The
goals of
the national economy are a more equitable distribution of OPPORTUNITIES,
income and wealth, a sustained increase in the amount of goods and
services
produced by the nation for the benefit of the Filipino people, AND AN
EXPANDING PRODUCTIVITY AS THE KEY TO RAISING THE QUALITY OF LIFE,
FOR ALL, ESPECIALLY

THE UNDERPRIVILEGED.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just one change; I think we omitted Filipino people because
it is too repetitive.
MR. OPLE: No, I think I did mention that produced by the nation for the
benefit of the Filipino people.
MR. VILLEGAS: No, we remove Filipino so that it will be for the benefit of
the people.
MR. OPLE: The second paragraph reads as follows: THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION AND FULL EMPLOYMENT BASED ON SOUND
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
AGRARIAN REFORM, THROUGH INDUSTRIES THAT MAKE FULL AND EFFICIENT
USE OF HUMAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND WHICH ARE COMPETITIVE IN
BOTH DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN
MARKETS. HOWEVER, THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FILIPINO ENTERPRISES
AGAINST UNFAIR FOREIGN COMPETITION AND TRADE PRACTICES. The last
sentence is an amendment by
Commissioner Padilla.
The third paragraph reads: IN THE PURSUIT OF THESE GOALS, ALL
ECONOMIC SECTORS AND REGIONS SHALL BE GIVEN OPTIMUM OPPORTUNITY
TO DEVELOP, AND A
BROADER-BASED OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISES, INCLUDING
CORPORATIONS, COOPERATIVES, AND SIMILAR COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS
SHALL BE ENCOURAGED.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 1, please raise their
hand.)
The results show 33 votes in favor and none against; Section 1 is approved.
to amend Section 2.

I have the following amendments to Section 2: The first is to delete the word
Since, then capitalize the t in the. Then in lieu of the comma (,)
following function, insert the word AND and delete the phrase in the
private sector. Change include to INCLUDING and add CORPORATE
ENTERPRISES,
COOPERATIVES, AND OTHER SIMILAR COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS. Delete
enjoy the freedom and change it to HAVE THE RIGHT. After to, insert the
word OWN
followed by a comma (,).
MR. VILLEGAS: Is Commissioner Davide working on the Ople amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: So, he is working on Section 2 of the Ople amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Then on the second from the last line, delete always,
however. So the entire section will read as follows: THE use of property
bears a
social function, AND all economic agents shall contribute to the common
good. Individuals and private groups, INCLUDING CORPORATE ENTERPRISES,
COOPERATIVES, AND OTHER SIMILAR COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS shall
HAVE THE RIGHT to OWN, establish and operate economic enterprises,
subject to the duty of
the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common
good so demands.
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just to harmonize with the first section, I think the
enumeration would be INCLUDING CORPORATIONS.
MR. DAVIDE: CORPORATE ENTERPRISES.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, but we will use CORPORATIONS.
MR. DAVIDE: CORPORATIONS, yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, the amendment is accepted.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is no registered speaker on Section 2, so I
move that we take a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide read the whole Section 2 with the
proposed amendments?
MR. DAVIDE: THE use of property bears a social function, AND all economic
agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups,
INCLUDING CORPORATE ENTERPRISES, COOPERATIVES, AND SIMILAR
COLLECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS shall HAVE THE RIGHT to OWN, establish and
operate economic
enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice
and to intervene when the common good so demands.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to Section 2? (Silence) The Chair
hears none; Section 2 is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized to amend Section 3.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On Section 3, Madam President, line 24, between the
words farming and in, insert the words WITH PRIORITY TO SUBSISTENCE
FISHERMEN AND
FISH WORKERS, to make it consistent with the Article on Social Justice. So,
the whole sentence will read as follows: The Congress may by law allow
small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
cooperative fish farming WITH PRIORITY TO SUBSISTENCE FISHERMEN AND
FISH
WORKERS in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be
recognized to present an amendment to Section 3.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, Commissioner Bacani and myself had
earlier filed a resolution which would include AIRWAVES AND RADIO
FREQUENCIES as
part of the natural resources.
I have here a defense on why they should be considered part of the natural
resources. I will just summarize this paper and submit it for the record.
But I just want to emphasize that broadcasting is a very important social
force in our present life. There are 308 radio stations in the country and 44
television stations, including replay and relay stations. These stations
generated a gross billing of P812 million in 1985.
Most of these broadcasts reach four out of every five Filipinos daily, but their
content generally leaves much to be desired which is usually soap operas
and trivial programs. Because of this, concern has been shown by many
sectors about the power these programs have in influencing the values,
lifestyles and
attitudes of the people.
Just an hour ago, we were discussing economic nationalism and I submit that
the important area that should be attended to is the area of changing our
cultural values so that we make ourselves more nationalistic consumers. In
other words, there should be preference for puto and locally made products
instead of hamburger or products of imported brands. Most of these
influences are due to advertising and the mass media.
THE PRESIDENT: Where does Commissioner Rosario Braid propose to insert
AIRWAVES AND RADIO FREQUENCIES?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I propose to insert it on line 5 after energy.
MR. VILLEGAS: We cannot accept the amendment, and so we would like to
bring it to the floor for voting.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Rosario Braid insist? May we know the
reason for not accepting, Commissioner Villegas?
MR. VILLEGAS: We have discussed this fully in public hearings. Defining what
airwaves are is very complex and technical. The consensus was that it is very
difficult to control airwaves. There was a secondary reason: since airspace is
traditionally included in the Article on National Territory, airwaves could
already be subsumed under airspace.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I just argue further. In the
Batasang Pambansa, there was a proposed bill Parliamentary Bill No. 5078
which
states that the radio frequencies spectrum being public property, its
enjoyment is granted as a privilege by the State and should be administered
in the
public interest and in accordance with international agreements and
conventions.
Earlier, several experts have recognized airwaves as a social resource which
should be regulated. The aim of this resolution is to insure that radio
frequencies do not just get passed on from one owner to the other without
the State providing criteria on who should be allocated these frequencies. It
has
been a common practice in the past that once a broadcast station stops
operating, the owner sells the frequency for several million pesos. This
should not
be done because, as we said, airwaves, being a public domain, should be
given back to the State which then allocates them on the basis of criteria
based
on public interest, broader-based ownership and management, and so forth.
It is for this reason that we feel they should be included as a public resource
and should fall under natural resources. I submit this is controversial, but I
would like to get this opportunity to give the Committee more arguments.
MR. VILLEGAS: There is no disagreement on the principle that airwaves
should be regulated by the government, and effectively they are, by the
Bureau of
Telecommunications. There are so many regulations. The only bone of
contention is to include them under the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony.
There must be a very specific way of actually measuring them and defining
them, and that is where the disagreement lies. So, we would rather leave it
to
the generic phrase air space and make it clear that we want the State to
regulate what the Commissioner is concerned about airwaves,
frequencies, radio
frequencies. But the moment we start including them in the same category
as forests or timberland, I think we will give our legislature a big problem, for
example, in defining quantitatively what the term airwaves is.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will the Committee accept a provision in the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony since, I think, this would fall under that
Article?
MR. VILLEGAS. : The Committee thinks it would be sufficient to put on record

that in talking about national economy and patrimony, we included airwaves
without actually enumerating them specifically in the provision.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: On the basis of that, I withdraw the amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I remind the Commissioners of our
agreement in the caucus that the new procedure would be that if an
amendment is accepted
by the Committee, the proponent need not and shall not argue his
amendment anymore, unless he is asked by the Committee to explain his
amendment that has
been accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: If the amendment has been accepted.
May I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
On page 2, line 25, in view also of my previous interpellations with regard to
the issue of concurrence of Congress, I would like to propose my amendment
now.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Villegas?
MR. VILLEGAS: There may be a previous amendment to that. The Jamir
amendment is previous to that.
MR. GASCON: I will defer to Commissioner Jamir.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized. We are still on Section 3.
MR. JAMIR: Yes, Madam President. With respect to the second paragraph of
Section 3, my amendment by substitution reads: THE PRESIDENT MAY ENTER
INTO
AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN-OWNED CORPORATIONS INVOLVING EITHER
TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LARGE-SCALE EXPLORATION,
DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF

NATURAL RESOURCES ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee accepts the amendment. Commissioner
Suarez will give the background.
Will Commissioner Jamir answer a few clarificatory questions?
MR. SUAREZ: This particular portion of the section has reference to what was
popularly known before as service contracts, among other things; is that
correct?
MR. SUAREZ: As it is formulated, the President may enter into service
contracts but subject to the guidelines that may be promulgated by
Congress?
MR. JAMIR: That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ: Therefore, that aspect of negotiation and consummation will
fall on the President, not upon Congress?
MR. JAMIR: That is also correct, Madam President
MR. SUAREZ: Except that all of these contracts, service or otherwise must be
made strictly in accordance with guidelines prescribed by Congress?
MR. JAMIR: That is also correct.
MR. SUAREZ: And the Gentleman is thinking in terms of a law that uniformly
covers situations of the same nature?
MR. JAMIR: That is 100 percent correct.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you very much.

MR. ROMULO: May we suggest that Commissioner Jamir get together with
Commissioner Sarmiento or maybe he can propose the amendments now.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I be recognized, Madam President?
MR. SARMIENTO: After the words terms and conditions provided by law,
may I suggest the inclusion of the words BASED ON REAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE
LONG-TERM GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY.
MR. JAMIR: My amendment has been accepted by the Committee, so I would
suggest that the Committee answer the Gentlemans question.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee accepts the amendment of Commissioner
Sarmiento.
MR. SARMIENTO: I thank the Commissioner.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento
again?
The amendment will read as follows: THE President may enter into
AGREEMENTS with foreign-owned corporations involving either TECHNICAL or
financial
assistance for large-scale EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT and utilization of
natural resources ACCORDING TO the terms and conditions provided by law,
BASED ON
REAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LONG-TERM GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY.
MR. ROMULO: We accept the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is accepted.
MR. FOZ: May we just add the word GENERAL to describe terms and
conditions because Congress cannot be expected to lay down detailed
terms and conditions
for the contracts to be entered into between the executive department and
the foreign-owned corporation. Congress can only lay down general
guidelines.
MR. ROMULO: The Gentleman wants to add the word GENERAL?
MR. ROMULO: Does Commissioner Sarmiento accept that? We have no
objection.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I hear the amendment.
MR. FOZ: It merely consists of the insertion of the word GENERAL before
terms.
MR. VILLEGAS: I think the Committee will accept the amendment to the
amendment.
MR. ROMULO: We accept the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: I yield, Madam President, to the amendment.
On Section 3, line 5, the word forests appear. The old laws used to refer to
timberlands; forests are only part of timberlands and there may be
timberlands without forests. So, would the Committee be agreeable to
accepting an amendment to add after the word forests OR TIMBERLANDS?
Line 16 of the same section reads: agreements shall be for a period of
twenty-five years. Does this mean it must be exactly twenty-five years or
perhaps
less? Is this merely a maximum? In other words, would the Committee accept
an amendment to insert NOT MORE THAN before twenty-five years?
MR. SUAREZ: May we just clarify that. If we put that descriptive phrase to
read: for a period of NOT MORE THAN twenty-five years, then how can we
harmonize it with the next phrase which reads: renewable for not more than
twenty-five years? I think we should harmonize the two together.
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes. We may say, for instance, NOT EXCEEDING.

MR. BENGZON: Just to clarify, Madam President, when the Commissioner
proposes to insert the words NOT MORE THAN on line 16, he means he is
not for
renewal, or is he?
MR. CONCEPCION: No.
MR. BENGZON: So what he really wants to say is that in the first period it
should not exceed twenty-five years.
MR. CONCEPCION: Neither should the second. Pardon me.
MR. BENGZON: Neither should the second, but the Commissioner agrees that
it should be renewable for another period of not more than another twentyfive
years?
MR. CONCEPCION: Exactly.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, after reflection, would changing the word
shall to MAY be reflective of Commissioner Concepcions thinking?
MR. CONCEPCION: I did not get it, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Suppose we change the word shall to MAY, will this be
accurately reflective of the Commissioners thinking regarding this matter?
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes. I have no objection to it.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the sentence will read: Such agreements MAY
BE for a period of twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years . . .
MR. CONCEPCION: I accept.
MR. RAMA: The amendment has been accepted by the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment has been accepted by the Committee. May
we first vote on the last paragraph?
MR. GASCON: Madam President, that is the point of my inquiry.

MR. GASCON: Commissioner Jamir had proposed an amendment with regard
to special service contracts which was accepted by the Committee. Since the
Committee
has accepted it, I would like to ask some questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon may proceed.
MR. GASCON: As it is proposed now, such service contracts will be entered
into by the President with the guidelines of a general law on service
contracts
to be enacted by Congress. Is that correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: The Commissioner is right, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: According to the original proposal if the President were to enter
into a particular agreement, he would need the concurrence of Congress.
Now
that it has been changed by the proposal of Commissioner Jamir in that
Congress will set the general law to which the President shall comply, the
President
will, therefore, not need the concurrence of Congress every time he enters
into service contracts. Is that correct?
MR. GASCON: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Jamir is in indirect
contrast to my proposed amendment, so I would like to object and present
my
proposed amendment to the body.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Gascon will please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, can we not vote first on the amendment
proposed by Commissioner Jamir since that is the one on the floor?
MR. GASCON: Yes, but perhaps to clarify my option, may I at least present my
amendment prior to our voting?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Chair thinks we should hear the amendment first.
MR. BENGZON: In other words, Commissioner Gascon will speak en contra,
because if the amendment of Commissioner Jamir is defeated, then the
Gascon
amendment will come in.
MR. GASCON: Yes, it will be up to the body.
I feel that the general law to be set by Congress as regard service contract
agreements which the President will enter into might be too general or since
we do not know the content yet of such a law, it might be that certain
agreements will be detrimental to the interest of the Filipinos. This is in direct
contrast to my proposal which provides that there be effective constraints in
the implementation of service contracts.
So instead of a general law to be passed by Congress to serve as a guideline
to the President when entering into service contract agreements, I propose
that every service contract entered into by the President would need the
concurrence of Congress, so as to assure the Filipinos of their interests with
regard to the issue in Section 3 on all lands of the public domain. My
alternative amendment, which we will discuss later, reads: THAT THE
PRESIDENT SHALL
ENTER INTO SUCH AGREEMENTS ONLY WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF TWOTHIRDS VOTE OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SITTING SEPARATELY.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, Commissioner Bengzon wants to say
something.
MR. BENGZON: The reason we made that shift is that we realized the original
proposal could breed corruption. By the way, this is not just confined to
service contracts but also to financial assistance. If we are going to make
every single contract subject to the concurrence of Congress which,
according
to the Commissioners amendment is the concurrence of two-thirds of
Congress voting separately then (1) there is a very great chance that each
contract
will be different from another; and (2) there is a great temptation that it
would breed corruption because of the great lobbying that is going to
happen.
And we do not want to subject our legislature to that.
Now, to answer the Commissioners apprehension, by general law, we do
not mean statements of motherhood. Congress can build all the restrictions
that it
wishes into that general law so that every contract entered into by the
President under that specific area will have to be uniform. The President has
no
choice but to follow all the guidelines that will be provided by law.
MR. GASCON: But my basic problem is that we do not know as of yet the
contents of such a general law as to how much constraints there will be in it.
And to
my mind, although the Committees contention that the regular concurrence
from Congress would subject Congress to extensive lobbying, I think that is a
risk we will have to take since Congress is a body of representatives of the
people whose membership will be changing regularly as there will be
changing
circumstances every time certain agreements are made. It would be best
that to keep in tab and attuned to the interest of the Filipino people,
whenever the
President enters into any agreement with regard to such an important matter
as technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development
and utilization of natural resources or service contracts, the peoples elected
representatives should be on top of it.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Jamir to restate his
amendment so we can vote on it intelligently.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I just reply for the record before we
ask for a vote?
MR. BENGZON: First of all, I think there should be a presumption that we
should trust Congress; second, that is precisely the reason we need people
like
the Commissioner to insure that we elect the right people to both Houses of
Congress; third, we should allow flexibility because of changing conditions. If
it turns out that the terms of the previous contract are not to the best
interest of the country anymore, then Congress can always change it.
MR. GASCON: They can change the general law?
MR. BENGZON: Certainly, they can change it.
So with those comments, Madam President, we are ready for a vote.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my amendment, as amended by

Commissioners Foz and Sarmiento, reads as follows: THE PRESIDENT MAY
ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH
FOREIGN-OWNED CORPORATIONS INVOLVING EITHER TECHNICAL OR
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LARGE-SCALE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT
AND UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW
BASED ON REAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LONG-TERM GROWTH OF THE
ECONOMY.
MR. GASCON: May I ask a question? If such amendment is approved, will that
be prejudicial to anyone who would like to seek amendment to the
amendment later
on?
THE PRESIDENT: No, once this is approved, any Commissioner can again
propose amendment to this last paragraph as approved. So it is better for us
to
approve first this proposed amendment of Commissioners Jamir, Sarmiento
and Foz.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, if Commissioner Gascon has any proposed
amendment to the amendment, he might as well do it now before voting.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, can I ask for a suspension for a few
minutes?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, we do not need to suspend the session. If
Commissioner Gascon needs a few minutes, I can fill up the remaining time
while he
completes his proposed amendment. I just wanted to ask Commissioner
Jamir whether he would entertain a minor amendment to his amendment,
and it reads as
follows: THE PRESIDENT SHALL SUBSEQUENTLY NOTIFY CONGRESS OF EVERY
SERVICE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
LAW. I think the reason is,
if I may state it briefly, as Commissioner Bengzon said, Congress can always
change the general law later on to conform to new perceptions of standards
that should be built into service contracts. But the only way Congress can do
this is if there were a notification requirement from the Office of the
President that such service contracts had been entered into, subject then to
the scrutiny of the Members of Congress. This pertains to a situation where
the service contracts are already entered into, and all that this amendment
seeks is the reporting requirement from the Office of the President. Will
Commissioner Jamir entertain that?
MR. JAMIR: I will gladly do so, if it is still within my power.

MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, the Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. JAMIR: I join the Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: Will Commissioner Ople give us his text please?
THE PRESIDENT: How does it read now?
MR. VILLEGAS: Will Commissioner Ople read it again?
MR. OPLE: Subject to styling by the Committee, it reads as follows: THE
PRESIDENT SHALL SUBSEQUENTLY NOTIFY CONGRESS OF EVERY SERVICE
CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PROVISION.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a new sentence?
THE PRESIDENT: It has been accepted by the Committee.
We are giving Commissioner Gascon time to complete his amendment.
SR. TAN: Madam President, may I ask a question?
SR. TAN: Am I correct in thinking that the only difference between these
future service contracts and the past service contracts under Mr. Marcos is
the
general law to be enacted by the legislature and the notification of Congress
by the President? That is the only difference, is it not?
SR. TAN: So those are the safeguards.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. There was no law at all governing service contracts
before.
SR. TAN: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I be recognized?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I move for the suspension of the session for at least
two minutes to consolidate the amendments?
THE PRESIDENT: May I request our guests not to enter the session hall
because the Commissioners are in caucus.
It was 3:41 p.m.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I believe there are some proposed
amendments to the Jamir amendment prior to our voting on it so I would like
to ask the
Acting Floor Leader who will be presenting those amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the other proposed amendments?
MR. GASCON: Commissioner Sarmiento will be presenting some amendments
to the Jamir amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, after conferring with my colleagues, we
decided to come up with these amendments mutually acceptable to all. So,
after the
words CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW, add BASED ON REAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GENERAL WELFARE OF

THE COUNTRY.
MR. VILLEGAS: The amendment is accepted, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: I have another amendment which was accepted by the
Committee. After COUNTRY, add IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF THE STATE TO
PROMOTE, DEVELOP
AND EMPLOY LOCAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF CONSERVING THE GENERATED WEALTH
FOR UTILIZATION BY THE PEOPLE.
MR. VILLEGAS: Would the Commissioner repeat that?
MR. SARMIENTO: It reads: IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF THE STATE TO
PROMOTE, DEVELOP AND EMPLOY LOCAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL
RESOURCES CONSISTENT WITH
THE PURPOSE OF CONSERVING THE GENERATED WEALTH FOR UTILIZATION
BY THE PEOPLE.
MR. VILLEGAS: Would the Commissioner explain what he means by
GENERATED WEALTH?
MR. SARMIENTO: This is actually a provision attached to all service contracts.
This is a common provision. It could mean conserving the natural resources.
That could be the interpretation of GENERATED WEALTH FOR UTILIZATION
BY THE PEOPLE.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this follow the Ople amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: After the Jamir amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: But there was a new sentence submitted by Commissioner
Ople which has been accepted by the Committee.
MR. OPLE: That has to do with the notification to Congress of all service
contracts entered into under the provision of that Article.
But I think the Chair might be referring to an earlier amendment I had
submitted which the Committee was considering favorably. It dealt with the
proposal
of Commissioner Bennagen regarding the sustained development of a
national talent pool of entrepreneurs, scientists, managers, professionals and
skilled
workers or craftsmen in all fields, which shall be a shared responsibility of the
State and the private sector.
I do not know if Commissioner Sarmiento might consider combining his

amendment on scientific manpower.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Bennagen would like to be recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I suggest that that be a separate section because it has a
broader coverage. Whereas, if it would be part of the Sarmiento, et al
proposal,
it could refer in a more limited manner to the exploitation of natural
resources.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I agree with Commissioner Bennagen. In this connection, we
are concerned with service contracts and the exploitation of natural
resources.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And I think the amendment, where we have joined our
formulations, would pertain to a broader field of activities, especially in
connection with
industrialization.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: Maybe we can simplify my proposed amendment, so that it
will read: IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF THE STATE TO PROMOTE, DEVELOP
AND EMPLOY LOCAL
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that still part of Section 3?
MR. DAVIDE: Could it not be properly accommodated either in the Article on
Declaration of Principles and State Policies or in the Article on Human
Resources because it would not be germane to the Article on National

Economy and Patrimony which we are now treating?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think the intention here, if I understand the amendment to
the amendment, is to make sure that when these technical and scientific
services
are rendered by foreigners there would be a deliberate attempt to develop
local talents so that we are not forever dependent on these foreigners. Am I
right?
MR. DAVIDE: So it is in relation to the service contracts?
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly. I think that is the intention, am I right?
MR. DAVIDE: Can it not be stated that the general law providing for service
contracts shall give priority to the adjective of Commissioner Sarmientos
amendment? It should be in the law itself.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is why it says, IT SHALL BE THE POLICY OF THE STATE
immediately following the statement about Congress.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to be clarified as to the
amendment of Commissioner Jamir so that I will know whether or not I
should stick to my
position.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the Jamir amendment, as amended, reads:
THE PRESIDENT MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN-OWNED
CORPORATIONS INVOLVING
EITHER TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LARGE-SCALE
EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW BASED ON REAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY. IT SHALL BE
THE POLICY OF THE STATE TO
PROMOTE, DEVELOP AND EMPLOY LOCAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
RESOURCES. THE PRESIDENT SHALL SUBSEQUENTLY NOTIFY CONGRESS OF
EVERY CONTRACT ENTERED INTO IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PROVISION.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the Commissioner read the portion GENERAL WELFARE
OF THE COUNTRY?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Madam President. . . . CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Gascon insist on his proposed
amendment?
MR. GASCON: I objected to that amendment and after listening to it again, I
feel that I still object on basic principles, that every service contract to be
entered into by the President should be with the concurrence of Congress. I
had earlier presented a proposed amendment of CONCURRENCE OF TWOTHIRDS VOTE
OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, but at this point in time, perhaps to
simplify choices, since basically the proposal of Commissioner Jamir is to set
a
general law with regard to service contracts, my proposal is to require
concurrence of Congress every time a service contract is to be made.
THE PRESIDENT: That is clear now. So can we proceed to vote?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I have the permission of the Acting Floor
Leader to speak for only two minutes in favor of the amendment of
Commissioner
Gascon.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo may proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: With due respect to the members of the Committee and
Commissioner Jamir, I am in favor of the objection of Commissioner Gascon.
Madam President, I was one of those who refused to sign the 1973
Constitution, and one of the reasons is that there were many provisions in
the Transitory
Provisions therein that favored aliens. I was shocked when I read a provision
authorizing service contracts while we, in this Constitutional Commission,
provided for Filipino control of the economy. We are, therefore, providing for
exceptional instances where aliens may circumvent Filipino control of our
economy. And one way of circumventing the rule in favor of Filipino control of
the economy is to recognize service contracts.
As far as I am concerned, if I should have my own way, I am for the complete
deletion of this provision. However, we are presenting a compromise in the
sense that we are requiring a two-thirds vote of all the Members of Congress
as a safeguard. I think we should not mistrust the future Members of

Congress
by saying that the purpose of this provision is to avoid corruption. We cannot
claim that they are less patriotic than we are. I think the Members of this
Commission should know that entering into service contracts is an exception
to the rule on protection of natural resources for the interest of the nation
and, therefore, being an exception it should be subject whenever possible, to
stringent rules. It seems to me that we are liberalizing the rules in favor
of aliens.
I say these things with a heavy heart, Madam President. I do not claim to be
a nationalist, but I love my country. Although we need investments, we must
adopt safeguards that are truly reflective of the sentiments of the people and
not mere cosmetic safeguards as they now appear in the Jamir amendment.
(Applause)
THE PRESIDENT: Let us proceed to vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Our guests at the gallery are requested not to applaud or do
anything which will disturb the session of the Commission.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Colayco be
recognized, but I would like to remind him that he has only one minute under
the
three-minute rule; Commissioner Nolledo has consumed two minutes.
I support in substance the position taken by Commissioners Gascon and
Nolledo. Let me point out the original thinking of the Committee itself. The
second
paragraph of Section 3 reads: The President with the concurrence of
Congress, by special law . . . In other words, the original thinking of the
Committee
here was really to put some safeguards, but it turned around and agreed to
delete the safeguards. These special contracts will probably involve oil and
mineral land explorations. These will, therefore, involve millions.
One of the reasons given for the deletion of the concurrence of Congress is
that it may open the system to payola. This fear can also be entertained the
other way. The President acts only upon the advice of his advisers, and if
Congress can be bribed, a group of people can be bribed much more easily.
But I
am not thinking of that; I am simply thinking of human error. Probably
Congress can anticipate the period, say, that the exploration should not
exceed a
certain period, and set standards. But as to the share of our government, for
instance, there can easily be a mistake of judgment. There is no way that
Congress can anticipate the discretion that should be used or the guidelines
that should govern the thinking or the decision of the President. And for this
reason, I believe that some kind of a safeguard or mechanism should be
inserted in the system to obviate or at least reduce the possibility that our
government may be too negligent in accepting the terms of the explorer.
That is why I agree with the thinking of the two Commissioners who spoke
ahead of
me that we should retain the original plan of the Committee. However,
personally, I would put it at a MAJORITY of either the Lower House or the
Upper
House.
I submit, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, just a point of clarification.
Maybe this should be addressed properly to the Acting Floor Leader since he
was a Member of the Batasang Pambansa. On the assumption that we will
pass this
resolution requiring the President to get the concurrence of Congress by
special law, does it mean a special law or only a resolution on the part of
both
Houses?
MR. MAAMBONG: I can hardly be considered an authority but if the
Commissioner is asking for my personal opinion, I think it should be a law.
MR. SUAREZ: So it will have to pass through the presentation of a bill
approving the terms and conditions of a service contract to be entered into
by the
President?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is my thinking, because the usage of the resolution is

quite limited.
MR. SUAREZ: Could it not take the form of a simple resolution passed by the
majority of the Members of Congress approving the service contract or
disapproving it, as the case may be?
MR. MAAMBONG: I already gave my answer. For example, one usage of a
resolution is to allow a certain person to accept a title of nobility. That is only
one
subject of a resolution, but this is a matter which is mandated by the
Constitution so I feel a resolution will not do. It has to be a law. But I could be
wrong; this is just my personal opinion.
MR. SUAREZ: That is why we are trying to clear this up in the event the
Gascon amendment would be approved by the body.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, for a point of order.
We are discussing the Jamir amendment. So if we vote yes in favor of the
Jamir amendment, then my objection will become moot and academic.
Commissioner
Suarez was inquiring as to the possibilities that will occur with the
concurrence of Congress; that is, if we vote against the Jamir amendment. So
I would
like to make a motion for a vote on the Jamir amendment with the
clarification that if it is not approved, then we will go to my amendment,
which requires
the concurrence of Congress instead of a general law.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, if I may just comment.
MR. ROMULO: On the inquiry of Commissioner Suarez, I think this would be
analogous to a grant of franchise by Congress. If we will recall, that has
always
been by law and it specifies the taxability, the rights and obligations of the
franchisee. In this case, I feel a general law would specify the sharing and
other pertinent terms and conditions, so it could provide enough safeguards.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President. This is an amendment to the
Jamir amendment and also to the Ople amendment. I propose to delete
NATURAL RESOURCES
and substitute it with the following: MINERALS, PETROLEUM AND OTHER
MINERAL OILS. On the Ople amendment, I propose to add: THE NOTIFICATION
TO CONGRESS
SHALL BE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE EXECUTION OF THE SERVICE
CONTRACT.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say with respect to the first
amendment in lieu of NATURAL RESOURCES?
MR. VILLEGAS: Could Commissioner Davide explain that?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, with the use of NATURAL RESOURCES here,
it would necessarily include all lands of the public domain, our marine
resources,
forests, parks and so on. So we would like to limit the scope of these service
contracts to those areas really where these may be needed, the exploitation,
development and exploration of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils.
And so, we believe that we should really, if we want to grant service
contracts
at all, limit the same to only those particular areas where Filipino capital may
not be sufficient, and not to all natural resources.
MR. SUAREZ: Just a point of clarification again, Madam President. When the
Commissioner made those enumerations and specifications, I suppose he
deliberately did not include agricultural land?
MR. DAVIDE: That is precisely the reason we have to enumerate what these
resources are into which service contracts may enter. So, beyond the reach
of any
service contract will be lands of the public domain, timberlands, forests,
marine resources, fauna and flora, wildlife and national parks.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the Commissioner is limiting the extension of
technical or financial assistance.
MR. DAVIDE: Only to those resources.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank Commissioner Davide for the clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Calderon is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: When the Commissioner talks about the search for mineral
oil, is he referring to offshore or onshore?
MR. DAVIDE: Both.
MR. CALDERON: Under the regalian doctrine, the government could grant
concessions to all agricultural lands or any property of the public domain.
MR. DAVIDE: The report of the Committee would limit agricultural land only
for possible alienation which could only be done by leases and by
homesteads.
MR. CALDERON: Under the regalian doctrine, the government could grant
leases to all lands, whether private or public, because anything under the
soil is
supposed to be owned by the State.
MR. DAVIDE: Not of private land.
Under the same section, in the opening paragraph, the Commissioner will
notice that except for lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot
be
alienated, and with respect to lands of the public domain, only by leases or
homesteads not exceeding 24 hectares and, of course, to Filipino citizens.
MR. CALDERON: Because under our present laws, private lands are not
exempt from the regalian doctrine. In other words, the State can enter into
contract
involving private lands.
MR. DAVIDE: That is basic to the principle of ownership by the individual. He
can enter into contracts, however, subject to the control now of the State in
view of social justice.
MR. CALDERON: Frankly, I am not satisfied with the Commissioners reply
because if an oil concessionaire, for instance, will have to enter into a
contract
with the private landowner, there will be delays in the development of our oil
resources.
MR. DAVIDE: No, the mineral that the Commissioner is talking about could
belong to the State.
MR. CALDERON: I am talking about oil.
MR. DAVIDE: Oil belongs to the State, not to any particular individual.
MR. CALDERON: Yes. So, we follow the regalian doctrine.

MR. DAVIDE: So, if there is a service contract for the exploration of oil, it must
be with the State which is supposed to be allowed under the Jamir
proposal.
MR. CALDERON: Even if it covers private lands?
MR. DAVIDE: Certainly, because these are minerals.
MR. CALDERON: Yes. With that, I am satisfied.
MR. MAAMBONG: May we now ask the Committee to respond to the
amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. VILLEGAS: We accept the amendment on the premise that service
contracts are really primarily for minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils.
All other
types of public lands, whether agricultural or timber, and marine resources
are subject to other provisions in this Article.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may we ask Commissioner Davide to
read the full text including his amendment because there seems to be some
confusion here?
MR. DAVIDE: I was not able to get all the other amendments. But my first
amendment would only be to change NATURAL RESOURCES to MINERALS,
PETROLEUM AND
OTHER MINERAL OILS.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the entire Jamir amendment, as amended,
reads: THE PRESIDENT MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGNOWNED CORPORATIONS
INVOLVING EITHER TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LARGE-SCALE
EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND UTILIZATION OF MINERALS, PETROLEUM
AND OTHER MINERAL OILS
ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY LAW
BASED ON REAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY.
We have introduced a slight change.
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment on the Ople amendment would be to

substitute SUBSEQUENTLY with the phrase WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM ITS
EXECUTION.
MR. OPLE: I gladly accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. VILLEGAS: So, to continue: THE PRESIDENT SHALL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
FROM ITS EXECUTION NOTIFY CONGRESS OF EVERY CONTRACT ENTERED
INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THIS PROVISION.
MR. DAVIDE: And the last amendment is just to delete -OWNED in
FOREIGN-OWNED on the first line so it reads: WITH FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS, because it may
be a corporation with a little Filipino contribution or capital.
MR. VILLEGAS: So it reads: THE PRESIDENT MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS
WITH FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, we are ready to put it to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the additional sentence of Commissioner
Sarmiento? Was it read?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, it is included, Madam President. It says: IN SUCH
AGREEMENTS, THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE, DEVELOP AND EMPLOY LOCAL
SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL RESOURCES.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, just for clarification.
MR. GASCON: We will be voting for or against, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, for or against.
MR. GASCON: If we vote against, that means we are in favor of the
concurrence of Congress for every service contract?
THE PRESIDENT: Not necessarily.

VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this proposed amendment of
Commissioners Jamir, Sarmiento, Ople, Davide, and others, please raise their
hand.
hand.)
Are there any abstentions?
MR. SUAREZ: I abstain, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: I abstain, Madam President.
abstentions; the amendment is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Treas be recognized for an
amendment on line 14.
MR. TREAS: Madam President, may I propose an amendment on line 14 of
Section 3 by deleting therefrom whose voting stock and controlling
interest, and in
lieu thereof, insert THE CAPITAL so the line should read: associations at
least sixty percent of THE CAPITAL is owned by such citizens.
MR. TREAS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment of Commissioner Treas on line 14 has
been accepted by the Committee.
approved.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the Committee would just like to go back to
the Jamir amendment for a change in style. Just for the record, it has
reference
to the amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento. We would like that
amendment to read as follows: IN SUCH AGREEMENTS THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT AND
USE OF LOCAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESOURCES.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that included in the vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Who is next?
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized for an
anterior amendment to Section 3.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a few minor amendments, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 5, after forests insert a comma (,) and the word
WILDLIFE followed by a comma (,). And then change the e in faune to
A, to read
FAUNA.
MR. VILLEGAS: Could Commissioner Davide just explain why he is introducing
WILDLIFE when flora and fauna are both wildlife?
MR. DAVIDE: No, not necessarily, because it may also be marine flora and
fauna, and fauna would refer to the animal kingdom so we have to go
beyond. These
are not the only part of our natural resources; the birds, and so on, are also
wildlife.
MR. VILLEGAS: All right.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a moment, Madam President. Is that accepted?
MR. AZCUNA: May I be recognized?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I believe that fauna includes wildlife. If the
term flora and fauna was intended to replace the term wildlife in the
1973
Constitution, I fear that there might be a redundancy if we mention both
wildlife and flora and fauna. I think we should choose between one or the
other.
MR. DAVIDE: I submit, Madam President, that wildlife is even broader, so
instead of flora and fauna we use the word WILDLIFE.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Bennagen, our naturalist, has something to
say.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I offer an observation. Flora and fauna is a broader
term and wildlife would be included within the concept of flora and
fauna, but
I agree to the inclusion of WILDLIFE, specifically to refer to endangered
species. It could be considered national treasure, for emphasis.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, so the Committee accepts WILDLIFE?
MR. BENNAGEN: Let us now give that emphasis that is required especially
with respect to endangered species.
THE PRESIDENT: It is accepted. So let us proceed to vote on that line first.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: On line 9, Madam President, before the word and after the
comma (,), insert EXPLOITATION.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, following the recommendation in the UP
draft, we omitted exploitation first of all because it is believed to be
subsumed
under development and secondly because it has a derogatory connotation.
MR. DAVIDE: I will not insist, but this one I hope the Committee will
immediately accept.
On lines 14 and 15, delete the clause at least sixty percent of whose voting
stock or controlling interest is and substitute the same with WHOSE CAPITAL
STOCK IS WHOLLY, so it will read: associations WHOSE CAPITAL STOCK IS

WHOLLY owned by such citizens.
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee cannot accept the proposal precisely because
we voted in favor of 60 percent.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to explain the proposal?
MR. MAAMBONG: Subject to the three-minute rule, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: It will not take me three minutes.
The Commission had just approved the Preamble. In the Preamble we clearly
stated there that the Filipino people are sovereign and that one of the
objectives for the creation or establishment of a government is to conserve
and develop the national patrimony. The implication is that the national
patrimony or our natural resources are exclusively reserved for the Filipino
people. No alien must be allowed to enjoy, exploit and develop our natural
resources. As a matter of fact, that principle proceeds from the fact that our
natural resources are gifts from God to the Filipino people and it would be
a breach of that special blessing from God if we will allow aliens to exploit
our natural resources.
I voted in favor of the Jamir proposal because it is not really exploitation that
we granted to the alien corporations but only for them to render
financial or technical assistance. It is not for them to enjoy our natural
resources. Madam President, our natural resources are depleting; our
population
is increasing by leaps and bounds. Fifty years from now, if we will allow these
aliens to exploit our natural resources, there will be no more natural
resources for the next generations of Filipinos. It may last long if we will
begin now. Since 1935 the aliens have been allowed to enjoy to a certain
extent the exploitation of our natural resources, and we became victims of
foreign dominance and control. The aliens are interested in coming to the
Philippines because they would like to enjoy the bounty of nature exclusively
intended for the Filipinos by God.
And so I appeal to all, for the sake of the future generations, that if we have
to pray in the Preamble to preserve and develop the national patrimony for
the sovereign Filipino people and for the generations to come, we must at
this time decide once and for all that our natural resources must be reserved
only to Filipino citizens.
Thank you.

MR. MAAMBONG: Unless the Committee would like to respond, we ask that
the matter be put to a vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just a short response.
This matter of ownership has been fully discussed in the Committee with all
the public hearings possible and the conclusion that 60-percent Filipino
ownership is a sufficient guarantee that the national welfare is going to be
preserved. Secondly, when we talk about shortage of domestic capital, this is
most acute in the exploration and development of natural resources because
it is in these activities that there is very high risk, especially in oil
exploration. It would prejudice not only the people who are not going to be
employed by these types of corporations that would not be able to attract
the
necessary capital but it would also prevent the utilization of natural
resources for the present generation in order to help them develop their
talents and
skills through education and other development programs.
Two points actually are being raised by Commissioner Davides proposed
amendment. One has reference to the percentage of holdings and the other
one is the
basis for that percentage. Would the body have any objection if we split it
into two portions because there may be several Commissioners who would
be
willing to accept the Commissioners proposal on capital stock in
contradistinction to a voting stock for controlling interest?
MR. VILLEGAS: The proposal has been accepted already.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but it was 60 percent.
MR. SUAREZ: So, it is now 60 percent as against wholly owned?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.

MR. SUAREZ: Is the Commissioner not insisting on the voting capital stock
because that was already accepted by the Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: Would it mean that it would be 100-percent voting capital
stock?
MR. SUAREZ: No, under the Commissioners proposal it is just CAPITAL not
stock.
MR. DAVIDE: No, I want it to be very clear. What is the alternative proposal of
the Committee? How shall it read?
MR. SUAREZ: It will only read something like: the CAPITAL OF WHICH IS
FULLY owned.
MR. VILLEGAS: Let me read lines 12 to 14 which state:
. . . enter into co-production, joint venture, production sharing agreements
with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least 60 percent of
whose CAPITAL is owned by such citizens.
We are going back to the 1935 and 1973 formulations.
MR. DAVIDE: I cannot accept the proposal because the word CAPITAL should
not really be the guiding principle. It is the ownership of the corporation. It
may be voting or not voting, but that is not the guiding principle.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the Commissioner is insisting on the use of the term
CAPITAL STOCK?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, to be followed by the phrase WHOLLY owned.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, but we are only concentrating on the first point
CAPITAL STOCK or merely CAPITAL.
MR. DAVIDE: CAPITAL STOCK?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, it is CAPITAL STOCK.
It was 4:41 p.m.
Commissioner Davide is to clarify his point.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Commissioner Davide has accepted the word CAPITAL in
place of voting stock or controlling interest. This is an amendment already
We would like to call for a vote on 100-percent Filipino versus 60-percent
Filipino.
MR. ALONTO: Is it 60 percent?
MR. VILLEGAS: Sixty percent, yes.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, shall we vote on the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Davide of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GASCON: Assuming that it is lost, that does not prejudice any other
Commissioner to make any recommendations on other percentages?
MR. VILLEGAS: I would suggest that we vote on sixty, which is indicated in
the committee report.
MR. GASCON: It is the amendment of Commissioner Davide that we should
vote on, not the committee report.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, it is all right.
MR. AZCUNA: May I be clarified as to that portion that was accepted by the
Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: The portion accepted by the Committee is the deletion of the
phrase voting stock or controlling interest.
MR. AZCUNA: Hence, without the Davide amendment, the committee report
would read: corporations or associations at least sixty percent of whose
CAPITAL is
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: So if the Davide amendment is lost, we are stuck with 60
percent of the capital to be owned by citizens?
MR. AZCUNA: But the control can be with the foreigners even if they are the
minority. Let us say 40 percent of the capital is owned by them, but it is the
voting capital, whereas, the Filipinos own the nonvoting shares. So we can
have a situation where the corporation is controlled by foreigners despite
being
the minority because they have the voting capital. That is the anomaly that
would result there.
MR. BENGZON: No, the reason we eliminated the word stock as stated in
the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions is that according to Commissioner Rodrigo,
there
are associations that do not have stocks. That is why we say CAPITAL.
MR. AZCUNA: We should not eliminate the phrase controlling interest.
MR. BENGZON: In the case of stock corporations, it is assumed
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, but what I mean is that the control should be with the
Filipinos.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, that is understood.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, because if we just say sixty percent of whose capital is
owned by the Filipinos, the capital may be voting or nonvoting.
MR. BENGZON: That is correct.
MR. AZCUNA: My concern is the situation where there is a voting stock. It is a
stock corporation. What the Committee requires is that 60 percent of the
capital should be owned by Filipinos. But that would not assure control
because that 60 percent may be non-voting.
MR. ROMULO: May we vote on the percentage first?

THE PRESIDENT: Before we vote on this, we want to be clarified first
MS. AQUINO: I would suggest that we vote on the Davide amendment which
is 100-percent capital, and if it is voted down, then we refer to the original
draft
which is capital stock not just capital.
MR. AZCUNA: The phrase controlling interest is an important consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us proceed to vote then.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President, Commissioner Padilla, is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: The Treas amendment has already been approved. The only
one left is the Davide amendment which is substituting the sixty percent to
WHOLLY
owned by Filipinos.
Madam President, I am against the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Davide because that is an ideal situation where domestic capital is available
for the
exploration, development and utilization of these natural resources,
especially minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. These are not only
risky
business but they also involve substantial capital. Obviously, it is an ideal
situation but it is not practical. And if we adopt the 100-percent capital of
Filipino citizens, I am afraid that these natural resources, particularly these
minerals and oil, et cetera, may remain hidden in our lands, or in other
offshore places without anyone being able to explore, develop or utilize
them. If it were possible to have a 100-percent Filipino capital, I would prefer
that rather than the 60 percent, but if we adopt the 100 percent, my fear is
that we will never be able to explore, develop and utilize our natural
resources because we do not have the domestic resources for that.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may I be allowed to react?
MR. DAVIDE: I am very glad that Commissioner Padilla emphasized minerals,

petroleum and mineral oils. The Commission has just approved the possible
foreign
entry into the development, exploration and utilization of these minerals,
petroleum and other mineral oils by virtue of the Jamir amendment. I voted
in
favor of the Jamir amendment because it will eventually give way to vesting
in exclusively Filipino citizens and corporations wholly owned by Filipino
citizens the right to utilize the other natural resources. This means that as a
matter of policy, natural resources should be utilized and exploited only
by Filipino citizens or corporations wholly owned by such citizens. But by
virtue of the Jamir amendment, since we feel that Filipino capital may not be
enough for the development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other
mineral oils, the President can enter into service contracts with foreign
corporations precisely for the development and utilization of such resources.
And so, there is nothing to fear that we will stagnate in the development of
minerals, petroleum, and mineral oils because we now allow service
contracts. It is, therefore, with more reason that at this time we must provide
for a
100-percent Filipinization generally to all natural resources.
MR. VILLEGAS: I think we are ready to vote, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, we ask that the matter be put to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide please read lines 14 and 15 with
his amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Lines 14 and 15, Section 3, as amended, will read: associations
whose CAPITAL stock is WHOLLY owned by such citizens.
VOTING
Commissioner Davide on lines 14 and 15 of Section 3, please raise their
hand. (Few
As many as are against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be

recognized once more for further amendments.
This is just an insertion of a new paragraph between lines 24 and 25 of
Section 3 of the same page. It will read as follows: THE GOVERNING AND
MANAGING
BOARDS OF SUCH CORPORATIONS SHALL BE VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES.
MR. VILLEGAS: Which corporations is the Commissioner referring to?
MR. DAVIDE: This refers to corporations 60 percent of whose capital is owned
by such citizens.
MR. VILLEGAS: Again the amendment will read . . .
MR. DAVIDE: THE GOVERNING AND MANAGING BODIES OF SUCH
CORPORATIONS SHALL BE VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
REV. RIGOS: I wonder if Commissioner Davide would agree to put that
sentence immediately after citizens on line 15.
MR. ROMULO: May I ask a question. Presumably, it is 60-40?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: What about the 40 percent? Would they not be entitled to a
proportionate seat in the board?
MR. DAVIDE: Under my proposal, they should not be allowed to sit in the
board.
MR. ROMULO: Then the Commissioner is really proposing 100 percent which
is the opposite way?
MR. DAVIDE: Not necessarily, because if 40 percent of the capital stock will
be owned by aliens who may sit in the board, they can still exercise their
right as ordinary stockholders and can submit the necessary proposal for,
say, a policy to be undertaken by the board.
MR. ROMULO: But that is part of the stockholders right to sit in the board
of directors.
MR. DAVIDE: That may be allowed but this is a very unusual and abnormal
situation so the Constitution itself can prohibit them to sit in the board.
MR. ROMULO: But it would be pointless to allow them 40 percent when they
cannot sit in the board nor have a say in the management of the company.
Likewise,
that would be extraordinary because both the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions allowed not only the 40 percent but commensurately they were
represented in
the board and management only to the extent of their equity interest, which
is 40 percent. The management of a company is lodged in the board; so if
the 60
percent which is composed of Filipinos, controls the board, then the Filipino
part has control of the company.
I think it is rather unfair to say: You may have 40 percent of the company,
but that is all. You cannot manage, you cannot sit in the board. That would
discourage investments. Then it is like having a one hundred-percent
ownership; I mean, either we allow a 60-40 with full rights to the 40 percent,
limited
as it is as to a minority, or we do not allow them at all. This means if it is
allowed, we cannot have it both ways
MR. DAVIDE: The aliens cannot also have everything. While they may be
given entry into subscriptions of the capital stock of the corporation, it does
not
necessarily follow that they cannot be deprived of the right of membership in
the managing or in the governing board of a particular corporation. But it
will not totally deprive them of a say because they can still exercise the
ordinary rights of stockholders They can submit their proposal and they can
be
heard.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but they have no vote. That is like being represented in
the Congress but not being allowed to vote like our old resident
Commissioners in
the United States. They can be heard; they can be seen but they cannot
vote.
MR. DAVIDE: If that was allowed under that situation, why can we not do it
now in respect to our natural resources? This is a very critical and delicate
issue.
MR. ROMULO: Precisely, we used to complain how unfair that was. One can
be seen and heard but he cannot vote.
MR. DAVIDE: We know that under the corporation law, we have the rights of
the minority stockholders. They can be heard. As a matter of fact, they can
probably allow a proxy to vote for them and, therefore, they still retain that
specific prerogative to participate just like what we did in the Article on
Social Justice.
MR. ROMULO: That would encourage dummies if we give them proxies.
MR. DAVIDE: As a matter of fact, when it comes to encouraging dummies, by
allowing 40-percent ownership to come in we will expect the proliferation of
corporations actually owned by aliens using dummies.
MR. ROMULO: No, because 40 percent is a substantial and fair share and,
therefore, the bona fide foreign investor is satisfied with that proportion. He
does not have to look for dummies. In fact, that is what assures a genuine
investment if we give a foreign investor the 40 percent and all the rights that
go with it. Otherwise, we are either discouraging the investment altogether
or we are encouraging circumvention. Let us be fair. If it is 60-40, then we
give him the right, limited as to his minority position.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, the body would like to know the position
of the Committee so that we can put the matter to a vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee does not accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee does not accept.
Will Commissioner Davide insist on his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: We request a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide state his proposed amendment
again?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment would be the insertion of a new
paragraph to Section 3, between lines 24 and 25, page 2, which reads: THE
GOVERNING AND
MANAGING BODIES OF SUCH CORPORATIONS SHALL BE VESTED EXCLUSIVELY
IN CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES.

MR. PADILLA: Madam President, may I just say that this Section 3 speaks of
co-production, joint venture, production sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens. If the foreign share of, say, 40 percent will not be represented in
the board or in management, I wonder if there would be any foreign investor
who will accept putting capital but without any voice in management. I think
that might make the provision on coproduction, joint venture and production
sharing illusory.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: If the Chair is not mistaken, that was the same point
expressed by Commissioner Romulo, a member of the Committee.
As many as are in favor of the Davide amendment, please raise their hand.
(Few Members raised their hand.)
their hand.)
hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor, 20 against and 1 abstention; the Davide
amendment is lost.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I be recognized to present my own
amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: Actually I am only pursuing the amendment presented by
Commissioner Concepcion, and I have his permission to proceed with it.
On line 16, Madam President, after the word period delete the word of.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, I have an anterior amendment. I have already
informed the Floor Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has an anterior amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: On what line would the Commissioner propose his anterior
amendment?
MR. GARCIA: It is actually on the same item, line 14, a primary amendment
regarding the percentage of capital stock and controlling interest. It is on the
same item where Commissioner Davide presented his amendment, but this
time I would like to raise it.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, with the indulgence of Commissioner
Garcia, our procedure is that primary amendments to approved amendments
will be taken up
later. Mine is an amendment to the provision which is now indicated in the
committee report. So if Commissioner Garcia does not mind, we can take
that up
after my amendment. It is very short, anyway.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Maambong. He may
now proceed.
As I was saying, on line 16, change the word of between the words
period and twenty-five to NOT EXCEEDING, so the whole line would read:
. . .
agreements shall be for a period NOT EXCEEDING twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years . . .
MR. VILLEGAS: The amendment is accepted.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Ople be
recognized for his amendment.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I propose a brief new section after line 30,
immediately preceding Section 4. I think we are still on Section 3, so
probably I
can give way to another proponent.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Garcia be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not yet approved the entire Section 3.

MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, Commissioner Garcia has another
MR. GARCIA: My amendment is on Section 3, the same item which
Commissioner Davide tried to amend. It is basically on the share of 60
percent. I would like
to propose that we raise the 60 percent to SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT so the line
would read: SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of whose CAPITAL is owned by such
citizens.
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee insists on staying with the 60 percent 6040.
Madam President, may we ask for a suspension of the session.
It was 5:07 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader, Commissioner Sarmiento, is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Garcia still has the floor. May I ask that he be
recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
I would like to propose the following amendment on Section 3, line 14 on

page 2. I propose to change the word sixty to SEVENTY-FIVE so, this will
read:
or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, production sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least
SEVENTY-FIVE percent of whose CAPITAL stock or controlling interest is
MR. VILLEGAS: This is just a correction. I think Commissioner Azcuna is not
insisting on the retention of the phrase controlling interest, so we will
retain CAPITAL to go back really to the 1935 and 1973 formulations.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I suggest that we retain the phrase controlling
interest?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, we will retain it.
VOTING
Commissioner Garcia for SEVENTY-FIVE percent, please raise their hand.
(Few Members
raised their hand.)
As many as are against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
hand.)
The results show 16 votes in favor, 18 against and 1 abstention; the Garcia
amendment is lost.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Foz be
recognized.
MR. FOZ: After losing by only two votes, I suppose that this next proposal will
finally get the vote of the majority. The amendment is to provide for at
least TWO-THIRDS.
MR. SUAREZ: It is equivalent to 66 2/3.

THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner repeat?
MR. FOZ: I propose TWO-THIRDS of whose CAPITAL is owned by such
citizens. Madam President, we are referring to the same provision to which
the previous
amendments have been suggested. First, we called for a 100-percent
ownership; and then, second, we called for a 75-percent ownership by
Filipino citizens.
So my proposal is to provide for at least TWO-THIRDS of the capital to be
owned by Filipino citizens. I would like to call the attention of the body that
the same ratio or equity requirement is provided in the case of public
utilities. And if we are willing to provide such equity requirements in the case
of
public utilities, we should at least likewise provide the same equity ratio in
the case of natural resources.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Romulo will respond.
MR. ROMULO: I just want to point out that there is an amendment here filed
to also reduce the ratio in Section 15 to 60-40.
MR. PADILLA: The 60 percent which appears in the committee report has
been repeatedly upheld in various votings. One proposal was whole 100
percent;
another one was 75 percent and now it is 66 2/3 percent. Is not the decision
of this Commission in voting to uphold the percentage in the committee
report
already a decision on this issue?
MR. FOZ: Our amendment has been previously brought to the attention of
the body.
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee does not accept the Commissioners
amendment. This has been discussed fully and, with only one-third of the
vote, it is like
having nothing at all in decision-making. It can be completely vetoed.

MR. RODRIGO: This is an extraordinary suggestion. But considering the
circumstances that the proposals from the 100 percent to 75 percent lost,
and now it
went down to 66 2/3 percent, we might go down to 65 percent next time. So
I suggest that we vote between 66 2/3 and 60 percent. Which does the body
want?
Then that should be the end of it; otherwise, this is ridiculous. After this, if
the 66 2/3 percent will lose, then somebody can say: Well, how about 65
percent?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair was made to understand that Commissioner Foz
proposal is the last proposal on this particular line. Will Commissioner Foz
restate
his proposal?
MR. FOZ: My proposal is TWO-THIRDS of whose CAPITAL or controlling
interest is owned by such citizens.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We now put Commissioner Foz amendment to a vote.
As many as are in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Foz, please raise
their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
their hand.)
The results show 17 votes in favor, 20 against, and no abstention; the
amendment is lost.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, since there are no more proponents of
amendments on Section 3, may I ask that the Chairman of the Steering
Committee be
recognized.
MR. OPLE: Before the Chairman of the Steering Committee responds, may I
make a manifestation that I have informed the Committee and the Floor
Leader that I
would like to propose an amendment by insertion immediately following
Section 3 tomorrow morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a new section?
MR. OPLE: Yes, as a new section, Madam President.

MR. BENGZON: May I remind the body that, per agreement, we will discuss
the Article on Local Governments tomorrow. Then we will go back to the
Article on
National Economy and Patrimony on Monday.
MR. VILLEGAS: Can we vote on the whole Section 3?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Chairman is now requesting a vote on
the entire Section 3 as amended. I think we have copies of the amendments.
MR. SARMIENTO: May we ask the Chairman to read the entire section.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I am going to make the same request.
MR. VILLEGAS: The entire Section 3 reads: All lands of the public domain,
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and
other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under
the full control and supervision of the State. Such activities may be directly
undertaken by the State, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture,
production sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or
associations at least sixty percent of whose capital or controlling interest is
owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under
such
terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigations, water supply, fisheries or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of
the grant. The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming with priority
to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country.
The President shall subsequently notify Congress of every contract entered
into in accordance with this provision within thirty days from its execution.
In such agreements, the State shall promote the development, and use of
local scientific and technical resources.
motion is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that the Chairman of the Steering
Committee be recognized in connection with the resolution for the
Constitutional
Commission to congratulate former Senator Taada.
CONSIDERATION OF
(Congratulating Senator Taada for His
Philippine Legion of Honor Award)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we consider Proposed Resolution No 538.
motion is approved.
permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read the whole text of the
resolution.
RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO CONGRATULATE
SENATOR TAADA
WHEREAS, the Republic of the Philippines has accorded Senator Lorenzo
Martinez Taada its highest award, the Philippine Legion of Honor, with the
degree of
Chief Commander, in recognition of his uncommon wisdom and steadfast
devotion to the principles of justice, freedom and democracy to which this

nation was
founded;
WHEREAS, the Constitutional Commission draws inspiration from the
example and achievements of the Grand Old Man of Philippine Politics who
has always
taken the leadership in the movement for human rights, nationalism and
social justice and who was one of the prime movers of the campaign that
successfully
overthrew the dictatorship; and
WHEREAS, the Constitutional Commission takes special cognizance of the
distinct honor given to Senator Taada and appreciates the Governments
conferment
of the highest state award long due him; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Constitutional Commission in session assembled, To officially
extend its warmest congratulations to Senator Lorenzo M. Taada for having
been conferred the Philippine Legion of Honor with the degree of Chief
Commander, by her Excellency, President Corazon C. Aquino.
(Sgd.) Wilfrido V. Villacorta (Sgd.) Yusup R. Abubakar
(Sgd.) Christine Tan (Sgd.) Cecilia Muoz Palma
(Sgd.) Adolfo S. Azcuna (Sgd.) Joaquin G. Bernas
(Sgd.) Vicente B. Foz (Sgd.) Christian S. Monsod
(Sgd.) Jose E. Suarez (Sgd.) Bernardo M. Villegas
(Sgd.) Minda Luz M. Quesada (Sgd.) Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
(Sgd.) Lugum L. Uka (Sgd.) Decoroso R. Rosales
(Sgd.) Napoleon G. Rama (Sgd.) Ambrosio B. Padilla
(Sgd.) Jose B. Laurel, Jr. (Sgd.) Cirilo A. Rigos
(Sgd.) Teodoro C. Bacani (Sgd.) Edmundo G. Garcia
(Sgd.) Florangel Rosario Braid (Sgd.) Efrain B. Treas
(Sgd.) Teodulo C. Natividad (Sgd.) Rene V. Sarmiento
(Sgd.) Felicitas C. Aquino (Sgd.) Lorenzo M. Sumulong

(Sgd.) Jose D. Calderon (Sgd.) Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon
(Sgd.) Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr. (Sgd.) Gregorio J. Tingson
(Sgd.) Jose C. Colayco (Sgd.) Jaime S.L. Tadeo
(Sgd.) Regalado E. Maambong (Sgd.) Ricardo T. Romulo
(Sgd.) Alberto M.K. Jamir (Sgd.) Roberto R. Concepcion
(Sgd.) Ahmad Domocao Alonto (Sgd.) Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr.
(Sgd.) Blas F. Ople (Sgd.) Eulogio R. Lerum
(Sgd.) Francisco A. Rodrigo (Sgd.) Crispino M. de Castro
Florenz D. Regalado (Sgd.) Ponciano L. Bennagen
Ma. Teresa F. Nieva (Sgd.) Jose N. Nolledo
Lino O. Brocka
ADOPTION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 538
(Congratulating Senator Taada for His Philippine Legion of Honor Award)
MR. BENGZON: I move that Proposed Resolution No. 538 be adopted in toto.
motion is approved.
Proposed Resolution No. 538 is adopted unanimously.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, have we finished voting on Section 3? I ask
because some of us wanted to vote and to object.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner suggesting that the body vote by
raising of hands?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, we will cast our negative votes.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 3 as read by the
honorable Chairman of the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised
their hand.)
As many as are against Section 3, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their hand.)
hand.)
The results show 24 votes in favor, 13 against and 1 abstention; Section 3 is
approved.
Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Madam President, may I say something?
SR. TAN: I admire the diligence of the Committee and I have no doubt about
their pro-Filipino attitude and their knowledge of economics, but what I
cannot
resolve is what happens if that 60-percent Filipino capital were so great and
the 40-percent foreign capital to explore our natural resources were so great
also? I cannot resolve why with the 60-40 we became so poor. I rather be
idealistic by allowing only Filipinos to explore our seas than continue being
this
poor while giving foreigners 40 percent and allowing them to explore or
maybe to rape our natural resources. (Applause)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Floor Leader, is there any other business?
MR. GASCON: Madam President, this is with regard to Section 1. I would like
to make a motion for a reconsideration of Section 1 for just one thing,
nothing
much really but maybe we can tackle it on Monday. It is with regard to
industrialization as indicated in Section 1 (2) which states:
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on
sound agricultural development and agrarian reform.
I was thinking that we should review this in the sense that there might be
some industries which are not based on agricultural development and
agrarian
reform. In that context, maybe just to broaden our concept of
industrialization, I am filing a motion for reconsideration so that perhaps we
could widen
the concept of industrialization. We should not limit any longer. That is my
only point, if I may reserve that right.
MR. MONSOD: I think the word industrialization is not synonymous with
industries.
MR. GASCON: That is right. My point of contention is that when the provision
says industrialization based on sound agricultural development and
agrarian
reform, we might be limiting our industrialization to this.
MR. MONSOD: No, industrialization is a generic term. It does not say
industries based on sound economic development. It says
industrialization.
THE PRESIDENT: This was discussed during the caucus, was it not?
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
MR. VILLACORTA: I would like to join Commissioner Gascon in asking for a
reconsideration of Section 1 for another reason. I think that during the . . .
(Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16, 1986.)
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will take this up on Monday.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President. There is a suggestion that there has
been . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16, 1986.)
MR. VILLACORTA: . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16,
1986.)
MR. MONSOD: . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16, 1986.)
1986.)
MR. MONSOD: . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16, 1986.)
1986.)
THE PRESIDENT: We will ask the Secretariat to have the proceedings of the
caucus transcribed by Monday.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move that we adjourn the session until
nine oclock tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until nine oclock tomorrow
morning.
It was 5:52 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 58
Saturday August 16, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Roberto R. Concepcion.
PRAYER
MR. CONCEPCION: Dear Lord, we thank Thee for Thy sustained assistance in
our earnest endeavors to draft a new Constitution for the Republic of the
Philippines.
Impart to us, our Father in heaven, the grace to vividly recall the fateful
events of last February when the armed and armored forces of the tyrant
confronted thousands of our civilian population who, armed with no more
than their faith in Thy wisdom and their just cause, held their ground,
seemingly
doomed to complete annihilation, when both groups were surprised to realize
that none of them were enemies, and all of them were and are Filipino
brothers;
and when exhilarated by this inspiring development they pledged to join
hands in the quest for truth and justice, in the pursuit of freedom and
equality,
in the promotion of peace and progress for all.
Help us, our loving Father, to draw strength from these meaningful tokens of
Thy love to avail ourselves of the light of Thy wisdom to find the right path
so that the new Constitution may ensure the stability of our beloved
Republic, enrich human dignity in our land, and promote the well-being and
progress of
the Filipino people. Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Absent
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present *
Regalado
Absent
Rosario Braid
Present *
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Absent
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present *
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present *
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Absent
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Absent
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present *
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present *
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

the Journal of yesterdays session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion
is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we proceed to the Reference of

Business? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from former Justice Jose B.L. Reyes, Acting Chairman, Presidential
Committee on Human Rights, Rizal Bldg., Ground Floor, University of Life
Complex,
Pasig, Metro Manila, calling attention to grave violations of tribal property
rights of ethnic minorities in the Mountain Province and elsewhere, saying
that such violations are made possible by the Regalian Doctrine which is
enshrined in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, recommending thereof proper
modification to guarantee the protection of the rights of these ethnic
minorities.
Communication signed by Mr. Democrito T. Mendoza of the Trade Union
Congress of the Philippines and 89 other signatories, seeking inclusion in the
Constitution of the proposed provision on industrialization, economic
protectionism and Filipinization of the economy.
Letter from Ms. Agnes Camacho and eight others of the University of the
Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, suggesting that local elective officials
should
serve a term of six years and that local elective officials should not be
allowed to run for reelection, be it for the same position or another, except
after the lapse of six years.
Communication with 384 signatories with their respective addresses, all

seeking to include in the Constitution a provision obliging the State to protect
the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
Principles.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized
Continuation
MR. RAMA: I move that we take up for consideration this morning Proposed
Resolution No. 470, the revised Article on Local Governments.
The parliamentary status is that we are in the period of amendments.
motion is approved.
We request the honorable Chairman, Commissioner Nolledo, and committee
members, Commissioners Calderon, Tingson, Rosales, Alonto, de Castro,
Bennagen,
Rigos, Regalado, Jamir and Ople to please occupy the front table.
The revised report of the Committee on Local Governments is now embodied
in Resolution No. 470, copies of which are distributed to the Members of the
Commission.
Last Tuesday, the Members of the Commission met in caucus and discussed
a prejudicial question on whether we should adopt a provision that will open
the
avenue towards federalism in the country. The Members of the Commission
decided that only two autonomous regions shall be recognized; namely,
Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras. So, the members of the Committee were
asked to make the necessary revisions in our Committee Report Nos. 21 and
25 which are
now consolidated in Resolution No. 470. I would like to explain the revised
report of the Committee.
We propose to include in the 1986 Constitution an Article on Local
Governments consisting of two parts; namely, general provisions, and
provisions on
autonomous regions. In Section 1 of the revised committee report, we stated
that the provinces, cities, municipalities and barrios are the territorial and
political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines. Then we stated that
there shall be autonomous regions as hereinafter provided for. So, we
recognized only the provinces, cities, municipalities and barrios as the
territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines and we
separated the provisions on autonomous regions because while we are
mandating Congress to create autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and
the Cordilleras,
the same shall be subject to certain conditions, one of which and it is very
important is that the creation of the autonomous region must be approved
in a plebiscite by a majority of the voters of the constituent units. SDML
In Section 2, we provided that Congress shall enact a Local Government
Code and the contents of the Code are stated in this section. This is a
substantial
reproduction of a similar provision in the 1973 Constitution, Madam
President.
In Section 3, we placed a provision on highly urbanized cities which considers
them as independent of the province but subject to an exception that the
voters of a city within the province shall not be deprived of their right to vote
for the elective provincial officials, a provision in accordance with a
resolution of Commissioner Napoleon Rama.
In Section 4, we reproduced a provision found in the original Committee
Report No. 21 that sectoral representation shall be recognized in legislative
bodies of local governments as may be prescribed by law.
In Section 5, we also reproduced a provision recommended in Committee
Report No. 21 that the President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over local government units.
Section 6 is also a reproduction of an identical provision in the 1973

Constitution and in our original Committee Report No. 21 that local
government units
may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services and
resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them.
Section 7 is actually a new provision intended to bring down centralized
power into local governments. It authorizes the creation of regional
development
councils composed of local government officials with such adequate powers
as may be prescribed by law, designed to accelerate the economic and social
growth of local government units. This was actually recommended by
Commissioner Christian Monsod.
Section 8 is also a reproduction of Committee Report No. 21 about the taxing
powers of local governments, and is also a reproduction of an identical
provision in Committee Report No. 21. We separated Section 10 from the
foregoing provisions because of what we consider to be an important
provision. So, I
read:
Local governments shall be entitled to share in the proceeds of the
exploitation and development of the national wealth within their respective
areas.
This was a resolution filed by Commissioners Ople, Maambong, Natividad and
de los Reyes.
Section 11 is also a reproduction with a slight modification of a provision in
Committee Report No. 21, and so the second part of the revised report
covers
the autonomous regions.
Section 1 under the heading AUTONOMOUS REGIONS states:
There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordillera consisting of provinces, cities and geographical areas with
common
historical, cultural linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other
characteristics within the framework of and respecting the national
sovereignty and
Madam President, the Members of the Constitutional Commission
unanimously decided to limit the creation of autonomous regions to Muslim
Mindanao and the
Cordilleras. So, such decision closed the door to the creation of other
autonomous regions. Pursuant to the observation of Commissioner Rodrigo, if
there
should be other regions seeking autonomy, then they must seek such
autonomy through a constitutional amendment.
In Section 2, we substantially reproduced a similar provision in Committee
Report No. 25 which states:
The Congress shall enact an Organic Act in consultation with multisectoral
bodies for each autonomous region, defining the basic structure of
government
for the region consisting of the regional executive department and regional
legislative assembly both of which shall be elective and representative of the
constituent political units.
The second sentence, Madam President, is aligned with many provisions in
our 1986 Constitution designed to preserve the customs and traditions of
indigenous communities. The second sentence of Section 2 reads:
The Organic Act may likewise provide for courts with personal law and
property law jurisdiction within the autonomous region consistent with the
provisions
of this Constitution on Judicial Power.
In fact, we have already the Muslim personal law enacted by the deposed
President as a decree, and we have also the creation of the Sharia Courts.
The last sentence is very important:
The creation of the autonomous region shall be approved in a plebiscite by
majority of the voters of the constituent units.
I am changing my opinion in my sponsorship speech that the majority shall
be determined with respect to the entire voting population of the
autonomous
regions. In our new report, it will be noticed that majority of the votes cast
shall be determined with respect to each constituent unit. For example, if
Iligan does not like to join the autonomous region based on that sentiments
expressed by the voters therein, then Iligan will not form part of the
autonomous region. RBR
Section 3 states:
The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over
autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
This is for purposes of emphasis.

Section 4 reproduces substantially the extent of legislative authority within
the territorial jurisdiction of each autonomous region. Actually, these words
were copies from the U.P. draft. The Committee, Madam President, decided
to delete the provision on authority to establish special forces in view of the
persistent resistance against such provision among the Members of the
Constitutional Commission. Instead we adopted the amendment of
Commissioners de
Castro, Natividad and de los Reyes, now Section 5, which reads:
The maintenance of peace and order within the region shall be the
responsibility of the local police agencies. The local chief executive of each
constituent unit shall exercise general supervision over the local police
forces. The defense of the region against insurgency or invasion shall be the
responsibility of the National Government.
With respect to Section 4 in relation to Section 6, if the powers of the
regional autonomous region are enumerated here and by law, it is
understood that
all powers, functions and responsibilities not granted by this Constitution or
by law to the autonomous region shall be vested in the national government.
Section 7 is just implementing, in effect, Section 1 of the provisions on the
autonomous regions. To make Section 1 more meaningful, we mandate
Congress
within one year from the election of its Members to define the territorial
jurisdiction of, and pass the organic act for, the autonomous regions in
Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras. I hope we have followed the guidelines set
forth by this honorable Commission in caucus last Tuesday. The Committee,
Madam
President, is now ready to accept amendments to this revised report of the
Committee on Local Governments.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, to enable the Commissioners with proposed
amendments to discuss their amendments with the Committee, I move that
we suspend the
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will suspend the session, but the Commissioners are
still in caucus. Therefore, we request our guests from the gallery not to
intrude into the session hall.
MR. FOZ: Are we going into the period of amendments?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, after this caucus.

MR. FOZ: May we raise some questions to clarify some of the provisions
embodied in this new draft?
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman please propound these questions to the
Committee in caucus.
It was 10:01 a.m.
MR. RAMA: The Committee is now ready to accept amendments.
May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized
My amendment is with respect to the second sentence of Section 1. I move
that it be deleted for being superfluous because, at any rate, the
autonomous
regions are already named and provided for in the portion under the heading
Autonomous Regions.
In the second place, I believe that the wording of the first sentence is quite
ambiguous in the sense that it might be interpreted to authorize the
creation of additional autonomous regions patterned after the Cordilleras and
Muslim Mindanao. RHLY
I heard the honorable Chairman state that the words hereinafter provided
in the sentence I am asking to be deleted refers to these two regions. So, it is
obvious that this sentence is already superfluous.

MR. NOLLEDO: With due respect to the observations of the Gentleman, the
purpose of stating There shall be autonomous regions as hereinafter
provided is
to complete the image of the local government structure of the entire
country. We really are manifesting that it is the sense of the Committee that
there
are only two autonomous regions to be recognized: namely, Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
That is why we did not put that in the first sentence because there are
certain conditions to be complied with in the creation of autonomous regions.
So, the Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment because the
entire image of the entire structured system of local governments will no
longer
be reflected.
MR. JAMIR: If that is so, we can just add the phrase AUTONOMOUS REGIONS
after the word barrios as they appear in the original version, without
putting it
in a separate sentence.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Gentleman does not mind, the reason we did not
include that in the first sentence is that autonomous regions are to be
created by
Congress, subject to certain conditions. Suppose those conditions are not
complied with, then we do not consider the autonomous regions as political
subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines.
The first sentence connotes, more or less, the regularly constituted political
units. We can submit the amendment of the Gentleman to the body for
voting.
MR. JAMIR: All right.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you
Madam President, the question is whether to delete the second sentence of
Section 1.
FR. BERNAS: Before we vote, may I ask one clarificatory question.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas may proceed.
FR. BERNAS: Is it then the sense of the Committee that besides recognizing
the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao as autonomous regions, Congress is
prohibited from creating other autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President. I said that we are adopting the Rodrigo
observation during the caucus that if there should be other regions aside
from
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras which would like to create themselves
into autonomous regions, they should seek a constitutional amendment.
FR. BERNAS: They should seek a constitutional amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: The body is now ready to vote on the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: The question, Madam President, is whether or not to delete
the second sentence of Section 1.
THE PRESIDENT: And this reads: There shall be autonomous regions as
hereinafter provided. That is the second sentence, is that not correct?
VOTING
Commissioner Jamir, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
their hand.)
to amend Section 1.
My first amendment would be on the title. It is just to add S to

GOVERNMENT and the words AND AUTONOMOUS REGIONS. So, the title of
the Article will be
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AUTONOMOUS REGIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us put that amendment to a vote.
MR. DAVIDE: I will not insist on my amendment to Section 1 because
Commissioner Maambong would be presenting his; I will follow later.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized to amend
Section 1?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we should ask the body if they have any
objection to the Davide amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us proceed on that, first.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized, if he will speak on this
proposed Davide amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Madam President, by changing the title to LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND AUTONOMOUS REGIONS, it may give the impression
that autonomous regions
are not local governments. So, I have no objection to making
GOVERNMENT plural but not to add AUTONOMOUS REGIONS because this
is an Article on Local
Governments.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain?
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Padilla through?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: The reason we should include AND AUTONOMOUS REGIONS in
the title is that the title must embody the contents of the succeeding
sections. Indeed,
we have a new subtitle with the words AUTONOMOUS REGIONS. It would
not necessarily follow that autonomous regions will not be considered
political units.
Section 1 under the general provisions defines what are really the general
classification of local governments. Under the subheading AUTONOMOUS
REGIONS,
we especially recognize two autonomous regions. So, the title will not be
misleading if it would be LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AUTONOMOUS
REGIONS. LGM
MR. RAMA: There are no more registered speakers on the same subject so we
can go into a vote.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Davide amendment is objected to by
Commissioner Padilla, and so it should be put to a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the Davide amendment, please
hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (Three Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 12 votes in favor, 9 against and 3 abstentions; the
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized to propose an
amendment on Section 1.
MR. PADILLA: The first sentence is a transposition in the form of Section 1,
Article XI of the 1973 Constitution, which reads:
The territorial and political subdivisions of the Philippines are the provinces,
cities, municipalities and barrios.
The same wording was used in the committee report, but the clauses were
merely transposed.
Section 1 of the proposed resolution reads:
The provinces, cities, municipalities and barrios are the territorial and
political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines.
So, I suggest that we readopt Section 1 of the 1973 Constitution which is a

matter of form.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we gladly accept the amendment because
it has become more emphatic.
MR. PADILLA: It is only a transposition, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla on
Section 1 has been accepted by the Committee.
approved.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, the second sentence reads. There shall be
autonomous regions as herein provided. I suggest that it be reworded as
follows:
THE CONGRESS SHALL AUTHORIZE TWO AUTONOMOUS REGIONS AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, instead of saying, there are or there shall be
autonomous regions.
MR. NOLLEDO: We regret, Madam President, that we cannot accept the
amendment because Commissioner de Castro will ask us whether Muslim
Mindanao will
constitute only one autonomous region. We made a statement before that
there may be two or more autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao as the
Congress may
provide. So, while we mention Muslim Mindanao as only one autonomous
region, the meaning is that Congress may decide to create two or more
autonomous
regions out of Mindanao.
MR. PADILLA: To make clear that autonomous regions are limited to Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras and not any other autonomous regions, I
suggest that
the provision will read: THE CONGRESS MAY AUTHORIZE AUTONOMOUS
REGIONS IN MUSLIM MINDANAO AND CORDILLERA AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED.
MR. OPLE: May I put a question to the Committee concerning the Padilla
amendment?
Is it the intent of the Committee that the creation of the two autonomous
regions is actually delegated to Congress? Or is it to be done under the
heading
of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AUTONOMOUS REGIONS right in the
Constitution, although mandating Congress to pass the enabling laws and
the organic acts to
implement this action of the Constitution?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is the understanding of the Committee that the Members of
the Commission in caucus intended to mandate Congress to create the
autonomous
regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. So, the Constitution itself
provides that there shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras and that Congress shall pass the necessary organic acts.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but is the act or the creation by the Constitution denied by
the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is, in effect, a constitutional creation because we are
authorizing Congress to enact the organic acts for Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras.
MR. OPLE: That intent seems to be clear now.
At the start of our session this morning, I requested the Floor Leader that I be
given an opportunity to speak, for the information of the body, on the
matter of the autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao, and this is basic
because it will run through from Section 1 up to the end of this committee
report.
Our caucus definitely decided that there must be autonomous regions only in
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. However, when we look at Muslim
Mindanao,
there are two regions which are not the same, having different dialects and
sometimes different customs; and one region would not like to be dominated
by
another region. I am talking of the Tausugs and the Maranaws. The Tausugs
are in the Province of Sulu and the Maranaws, in Lanao del Norte, Lanao del
Sur,
and the surrounding areas. It will be very, very difficult to form only one
autonomous region in these areas because the two Muslim areas do not
agree with
each other. So, I was recommending to the Committee and I talked with
Commissioner Alonto that it is necessary to create two autonomous
regions in
Muslim Mindanao; one in Sulu, the Tausugs, and the other, the Maranaws.
On the Cordilleras, during our meeting in the Committee on Local
Governments, it was clear to my mind that the Kalinga-Apayaos are not in
favor of
autonomous region while the others are in favor. In fact, those we invited as
our honored guests do not agree with each other. I do not know how the
Committee came out with the decision to create an autonomous region in
the Cordilleras when there are two big factions that are not of the same
opinion.
May we clarify this?
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Alonto would like to clarify. Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, the statements of the honorable
Commissioner are both partly correct and partly wrong. In the case of Muslim
Mindanao, the
reason we specifically stated in this Constitution Muslim Mindanao is that
these different ethnic groups, presently the Muslims in Mindanao, are agreed
on one definite discipline, the discipline of Islam. Whatever the tribe any of
these ethnic groups in Mindanao belong to is completely in agreement at
least on the basic principles of Islam. That is the reason we grouped them
together as Muslim Mindanao. As far as grouping them into different
territorial
autonomous regions is concerned, that is left to Congress. So, the
subsequent Congress will determine which of these ethnic groups could be
grouped
together by reason of geography, by reason of local customs or by any other
reason for that matter. ELC
MR. DE CASTRO: Do I understand then that Congress may create two

autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao?
MR. ALONTO: It depends upon Congress in the sense that, if it is not possible,
for example, by reason of geography to create one solid autonomous region
for the Muslims of Mindanao, Congress has the leeway under this
constitutional provision to create two or more.
MR. DE CASTRO: That is with regard to the Muslim dominated area of
Mindanao. What about the Cordilleras?
MR. ALONTO: In accordance with the spirit of these constitutional provisions,
I think that will also be similar to the Cordilleras although I would prefer
that Commissioner Bennagen explain that to the Gentleman.
MR. DE CASTRO: I brought up this matter because of the amendment of
Honorable Padilla on the second sentence of Section 1 where he stated that
there shall
be two autonomous regions. This will limit Congress in making only one
autonomous region for Muslim Mindanao and one autonomous region for the
Cordilleras
when actually there are two different factions in Muslim Mindanao and two
different factions in the Cordilleras.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to invite the attention of Commissioner
de Castro to the fact that Commissioner Padilla revised his proposed
amendment
precisely to meet that particular situation.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then I would like to ask the Committee one more question.
In a few months, has the quarrel between the two Cordillera groups which
has been
existing for many years been settled?
MR. BENNAGEN: Both in the case of Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras,
the fact is that there are a number of ethnic groups within each region but
which
are unified by common bonds. In the case of the Muslims; there are at least
seven ethnic groups, the three biggest of which are the Tausugs, the
Maguindanaos and the Maranaws. But in spite of these ethnic differences,
they are unified by a long history of common struggle and, more importantly,
by
Islam as a unifying factor. In the case of the Cordilleras, common ecology,
cultural contact, the common response to government neglect and all other
external forces have unified them. In the case of the impression that there
are two major factions in the Cordilleras, I think that was already resolved
when I answered the question of Commissioner Rigos, who said that during
the committee hearings, there was one big group which asserted that they
are not
for autonomy. I think I read a letter of disclaimer from the same organization,
and with the Chairs indulgence, I can reread that letter.
MR. DE CASTRO: I think it may not be necessary.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, it is not our job to settle; it is the job of the people to
settle that. The letter that I am going to read tells us that that has been
settled. Whatever quarrel remains, I think we should take it as a family
problem.
MR. DE CASTRO: Without reading that letter, I will agree to what the
Gentleman said. To expedite the proceedings, will the Committee accept
certain
amendments, when the time comes, on Section 1 of the provisions on the
autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: We will be receptive if we feel that it will not destroy the
essence of the provision.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople was seeking to be recognized.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think the more appropriate place for exchanges of views on
the intent of the Commission concerning the autonomous regions would be
when we
come to the separate article dealing with them. But since the issue has been
raised I would not say prematurely because we are dealing with the
second
sentence of Section 1 about autonomous regions may I volunteer the
information that on behalf of the original proponents of the resolution to
create two
autonomous regions, we did contemplate only one autonomous region for
Muslim Mindanao.
Madam President, this has been the butt of controversy for many years now,
with the Philippine government in the past regime setting up two
autonomous
regions which, in the view of many Muslim leaders, was an attempt to
circumvent the obligations of the Philippine government under the Tripoli
Agreement. I
am not saying that the Tripoli Agreement binds this Commission; it is far from
that. But if we have chosen to write a constitution of peace, peace in the
countryside through land reform, peace through social justice in labor, peace
in the Cordilleras and in Muslim Mindanao, then I think we have to recognize
that the major demand of most of the groups Muslim groups in Mindanao
whether or not this is the MNLF or alternative Muslim organization is
precisely
to form a single autonomous region in what used to be the Moro homeland,
consisting of several provinces and cities. I think if we say now that there
shall
be two autonomous regions in Mindanao instead of only one, we would have
to face all over again this serious accusation of the Moro National Liberation
Front and other Muslim groups that we are not seriously addressing their
problem. We are dividing them instead of unifying them. Of course,
Commissioner de
Castro is right. There are Maranaws, there are Maguindanaos, there are
Tausugs, there are Samals, and there are Yakans. But for purposes of giving
Muslim
Mindanao their autonomy for which they have waged an armed struggle as
well as a peaceful struggle, we should not fall short of the minimum
expectation
that this shall be a single autonomous region for Muslim Mindanao.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to support that view because in the earlier
manifestations that I have already made, I adverted to the fact that there
have been
systematic ongoing consultations among the various ethnic groups unified by
Islam. And it would not be fair if we even drop the hint that there is this
overriding division among these various ethnic groups because the fact is
that they are unified as a community in spite of ethnic differences.
THE PRESIDENT: May we go back now to the proposed Padilla amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may we ask Commissioner Padilla if he is
willing to adopt the committee recommendation based on his amendment
that it should
read as follows: There shall be autonomous regions in MUSLIM MINDANAO
AND THE CORDILLERA as hereinafter provided. We will accept the
amendment if it so
reads.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, that is my amendment.

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, instead of starting with THE CONGRESS, the Committee
believes that it would be more emphatic if put: There shall be autonomous
regions
IN MUSLIM MINDANAO AND THE CORDILLERA as hereinafter provided. We
will accept that amendment if it runs like that.
MR. PADILLA: I yield.
The Committee accepts the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment on the
second sentence of Section 1? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Ople be recognized to
amend Section 1.
On my own behalf and that of co-proponents who will be identified later, may
I propose an amendment by inserting a paragraph in Section 1 that will run
as
follows: IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE ENUMERATION, CONGRESS MAY, BY
LAW, RECOGNIZE A SPECIAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISION BASED ON
METROPOLITAN AREAS, INCLUDING THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, SUBJECT TO A PLEBISCITE, AND PROVIDED THAT
THE COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES RETAIN THEIR BASIC
AUTONOMY AND SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES; AND PROVIDED
FURTHER THAT ANY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY THAT MAY BE CREATED
SHALL LIMIT ITS JURISDICTION TO
BASIC SERVICES REQUIRING AREA-WIDE COORDINATION. In this respect, I
would appreciate it if the Committee will allow me to give a very brief
explanation for
this proposal.
Madam President, the enumeration of political subdivisions in Section 1 omits
any mention of metropolitan regions and by implication obliterates Metro
Manila and potential equivalents in the Visayas and Mindanao as distinct

political subdivisions.
This draft provision will rescue the existing National Capital Region with its
population of eight million from the possibility of disappearing in a
constitutional limbo or from the fate of becoming constitutional orphans.
There is nothing here to suggest that the Metro Manila Commission in its
present
form will be preserved. It leaves to Congress the option of providing for a
supra-municipal council or authority, while vesting basic autonomy in the
cities and municipalities themselves, and limiting the jurisdiction of that
council or authority to several basic services requiring area-wide
coordination
and supervision.
These services, Madam President, shall include drainage and flood control,
zoning and land use, traffic and transport management, garbage collection
and
dump sites, and possibly, as Congress may determine, also health and peace
and order.
It may be pointed out in this connection that although differences exist
among leaders of Metro Manila with respect to the form of a supramunicipal
authority, there is perfect unanimity that the right of Metro Manila to exist as
a political subdivision should not be denied, especially by omission from
the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no major metropolitan
area in the world, including so-called conurbations, that is without a system
of governance.
The model of a political subdivision envisaged here can apply not only to the
National Capital Region but also to potential conurbations in the south, such
as Cebu and Davao, as they meet the standards to be established by
Congress and subject to the preference of the people themselves in a
plebiscite.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to propound some questions to
Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: Gladly, Madam President.
In the proposed amendment of the Gentleman, he is returning the mayorcouncil setup of government to component cities and municipalities within
the
National Capital Region?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. That intention is very clear and is made
explicit in this draft provision.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to the phrase SHALL LIMIT ITS JURISDICTION TO
BASIC SERVICES REQUIRING AREA-WIDE COORDINATION, does the word
JURISDICTION
also refer to rules to be promulgated by the metropolitan authority?
MR. OPLE: Yes, but only with respect to such spheres of competence that will
be granted by Congress to the metropolitan authority. What this paragraph
does
contemplate, although it has been omitted for the sake of brevity, is that
under the authority, there will be a council consisting of the mayors
themselves
who will make the rules for the authority with respect to what they hold in
common.
MR. NOLLEDO: Do I understand it right that the rules to be promulgated by
the metropolitan authority should not infringe upon the provisions of the
ordinances within the component cities and municipalities?
MR. OPLE: They should not and in that sense, the basic autonomy is vested
in the municipal councils and the mayors themselves. Since the mayors will,
as
contemplated here, constitute the rule-making council of the metropolitan
authority, they will ensure that there is no inconsistency between the rules
for
the metropolis and the ordinances of the municipal councils, Madam
President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Last question, Madam President.
Do I understand it right from the Gentlemans explanation that the Metro
Manila Commission will continue under P.D. No. 824 until the same is
repealed by
Congress?
MR. OPLE: Yes, P.D. No. 824 has been upheld by the Supreme Court recently
as being valid and constitutional. Therefore, until repealed or amended
otherwise, the Metro Manila Commission in its present form will continue and
the 15,000 employees, some of whom are outside these halls right now, are
guaranteed stability of employment. Of course, the Metro Manila Commission
is set aside in favor of a new authority that Congress will determine.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, another question from Commissioner

Bennagen.
MR. BENNAGEN: In Commissioner Oples listing of basic services are included
drainage and flood control, zoning and land use, traffic and transport
management. In the Gentlemans contemplation, would jurisdiction also
include the establishment of schools?
I ask this particularly in connection with the congestion of the university belt.
I think there were floods before the terms of dispersal of schools which
necessarily affect traffic management and other social services in areas
where these schools are concentrated.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, this list of basic services is not self-limiting, but
we wanted to point out that consistent with the basic autonomy vested in
the cities and municipalities, the sphere of jurisdiction of the metropolitan
authority that will supplant the Metro Manila Commission ought to be
confined
just to several areas of basic services. Should it include schools eventually?
We will leave that to Congress, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas seeks to be recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Just a few clarificatory questions. The amendment uses the
word political subdivision, the same word used in Section 1. However, the
amendment limits its jurisdiction to basic services. My question is: In terms
of categorization in municipal corporation law, how would this body be
categorized? There is a distinction usually made between municipal
corporations and quasi-municipal corporations And quasi-municipal
corporations are of
very limited jurisdiction on basic services drainage system, education, et
cetera. Is what is contemplated here something below a municipal
corporation?
MR. OPLE: It is probably located somewhat below the level of a municipal
corporation, but at the same time, we wanted to leave to Congress some
flexibility
to determine, this being a sui generis situation or one of a kind. Probably, the
prudent thing to do would be to leave to Congress a lot of flexibility to
determine what kind of supramunicipal authority will be established,
although the bias of this constitutional provision, as proposed, is towards
limiting
the powers of this authority only to the management of some basic services
commonly benefitting the component cities and municipalities and not a
situation
such as what the Metro Manila Commission now has, where all the legislative
and executive powers are concentrated in a non-elective body.
FR. BERNAS: As I see it, therefore, would it be correct to say that what the
Gentleman contemplates here is something between what Section 1
contemplates
and what Section 6 contemplates?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I said sui generis, and it will challenge Congress to come out
with the most appropriate form of authority.
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, there are models for this in other
jurisdictions.
FR. BERNAS: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, I would like to strongly support the
amendment of Commissioner Ople from experiences in other parts of the
world when
addressing the economic problems of what is not only a metropolis but a
megapolis like Mexico, Tokyo and South Korea. It is not only expedient but
imperative that there be some way of attaining economies of scale in the
basic services enumerated by Commissioner Ople. I think a study has
already been
made of the problems of Metro Cebu and, sooner or later, it will be
imperative to have a way of coordinating basic services for the benefit of the
residents of the metropolis.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized
MS. AQUINO: Will the proponent yield to a few clarificatory questions?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, to the lady, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Am I correct in understanding that the Gentlemans proposal

does not contemplate the empowerment to these special political
subdivisions with
the police power and the power of taxation?
MR. OPLE: The police power is vested in the Metropolitan Police Command
which is part of the chain of command of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
but
there is nothing here to bar a future law from including peace and order, as
the explanatory note says, or even certain powers of taxation. But right now,
I think the inclination of this provision is to vest as much powers as possible
in the local units themselves rather than in a supramunicipal authority.
MS. AQUINO: But even then, the power of this supramunicipal authority shall
be limited to basic services requiring areawide jurisdiction. In that case,
would this not more aptly belong to Section 6 of the proposed draft of the
committee report on local government units grouping themselves or
consolidating
their efforts, services and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to
them?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. We have given scrupulous attention to
Section 6 as an alternative to this provision but we have taken counsel with a
lot of
people authoritative in this sphere. They point out that Section 6 was
actually transferred bodily from the 1973 Constitution to the present draft
Constitution, and experiments conducted in the past, according to Section 6,
have not proven highly successful, the reason being that this implies a
voluntary association of several local government units. In Metro Manila they
tried this before 1975 and the results were inconclusive and disappointing;
so the Metro Manila Commission was established. On the other hand, it was
an overreaction to the insufficiency of the experiments conducted under
Section
6; it became too powerful. We are now correcting both through this draft
provision, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the problem seems to be the anticipation of
the powers that might be vested in this political subdivision which is
essentially
in the nature of a geopolitical subdivision.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: By that, it would necessarily cover the requirements of
contiguity, adjacency and accessibility to each other. When they are grouped
together
as a geopolitical subdivision, necessarily, the subdivision carries the juristic

personality of a municipal corporation which carries with it the inherent
powers and jurisdiction of police power and taxation. However, if it is
delimited as provided in the last proviso of this proposed Article, then I am
apprehensive of the possibility of confusion in terms of putting together the
concept of a geopolitical subdivision with the limited powers as the
Gentleman intends.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I have already described the situation in Metro Manila as sui
generis or one of a kind and, therefore, we leave as much flexibility as
possible to Congress who will, in fact, provide both the structure and the
powers of this Commission consistent with the broad outline of this draft
provision. I think the Congress will have to find a sort of middle band
between a full-pledged municipal corporation with all its inherent powers and
the
provisions of Section 6. Why do I mention Section 6? Because in this case,
the metropolitan rule-making council, according to the contemplation of this
provision but it is not made explicit, will consist of the mayors of the
component cities and municipalities themselves. Therefore, this is
reminiscent of
a kind of loose confederacy where the municipalities and the cities and
that is what they agree on now retain their autonomous powers as much
as
possible but have to recognize the fact that, as Commissioner Villegas earlier
said, there are common basic services to them, all of which are better
undertaken on a regionwide basis. In that respect, the supramunicipal
authority will have the competence and the jurisdiction.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may I suggest to the proponent that he be
more explicit in his clarification of the concept of supramunicipal authority
because to me, it is some kind of a hybrid or a mongrel that does not belong
to Section 1. If we adopt it and it attains to the level of Section 1,
specifically defining what are the municipal corporations, with the absence of
jurisprudence on this matter, it might be unsettling not only to
jurisprudence but also to the laws on municipal corporations.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I call attention to the fact that what is
central here is that we authorize Congress to recognize a special political
subdivision based on metropolitan areas, in addition to those that are
enumerated in the first sentence of Section 1. I think that is the most
fundamental
so that they are not consigned to a constitutional limbo. And having provided
for that, meaning, by an act of Congress a metropolitan area can be
recognized as a special political sub-division, I think we empower Congress to
provide that kind of a suitable structure which will address problems of
economies of scale for the entire region, but which still provide and vest
basic local autonomy in the component cities and municipalities.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a few minutes before
hearing Commissioners Colayco and Bernas.
It was 11:07 a.m.
MR. OPLE: I have agreed to a rewording of the proposed amendment
concerning metropolitan areas, the final draft text now being in the hands of
the
Committee. But may I acknowledge the other contributors to this draft
provision, Madam President; namely, Commissioners Nolledo, Azcuna,
Bennagen, Alonto,
Calderon, Monsod, Davide, Aquino, Bernas and President Cecilia Muoz
Palma.
The text that will now be read by the Chairman of the Committee is proposed
to be relocated to what all the conferees here thought was the more
appropriate
section, which is Section 6, rather than as part of Section 1. And with that,
Madam President, may I ask the Chairman of the Committee to read the text
of
the proposed amendment as finalized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo may please proceed.
After considering the refinements suggested by Commissioners Davide and
Monsod, the Ople amendment shall read as follows: THE CONGRESS MAY,
BY LAW, CREATE
A SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INCLUDING THE

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, SUBJECT TO A PLEBISCITE AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11 HEREOF. THE
COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES SHALL RETAIN THEIR BASIC
AUTONOMY. IT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES.
THE METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY
THAT MAY THEREBY BE CREATED SHALL LIMIT ITS JURISDICTION TO BASIC
SERVICES REQUIRING COORDINATION.
MR. DAVIDE: I made a reservation with the Chairman for a possible
clarification. I think it can also be answered by Commissioner Ople.
What would be the effect of this provision on the allocation of separate seats
for the Lower House of Congress as now defined and prescribed in Section 5
of the proposed Article on the Legislative? Under said section, the
congressional districts or the legislative seats are to be apportioned among
cities and
provinces. Since we recognize now a supramunicipal, geopolitical
subdivision, is it our understanding that the areas composing a metropolitan
authority
will be entitled to separate representation in the Lower House of Congress?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I reply to that on behalf of the Committee.
The answer is yes. I think we should note that the original contemplation of
the Committee on the Legislative allowed for the return, for purposes of
redistricting, of ten towns of Rizal to the old mother province and one town of
Bulacan to the old mother province. I think it is now clear that the
intention is to preserve the territorial integrity under this section of what is
known as the National Capital Region or the Metropolitan Manila Region
and, therefore, the redistricting, now being undertaken by the Committee on
the Legislative with the help of the COMELEC, should take proper account of
that.
MR. DAVIDE: Does it mean, therefore, that an approval of this amendment
would necessarily result in the amendment to the proposed Section 5 of the
Article
on the Legislative?
MR. OPLE: Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative pertains to the
apportionment of the seats.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.

MR. OPLE; So that in concrete terms, Madam President, my own reading of
the situation is and I hope the Committee supports this that the
Committee on
the Legislative may proceed to redistrict on the basis of the existence of an
entity known as the National Capital Region. Valenzuela, for example, in the
original redistricting plan of the COMELEC submitted to the Committee on
the Legislative, was returned to Bulacan for purposes of redistricting. I think
that is now no longer necessary. And in the case of the ten towns of Rizal, I
think this will save Senator Sumulong the pain of having to attend to the
redistricting of the ten towns that were of Rizal origin.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have to express this view because upon its
approval, the Committee on the Legislative will be compelled to request the
re-opening of Section 5 of the proposed Article on the Legislative.
Thank you.
MR. SUMULONG: Madam President.
MR. SUMULONG: May I address a few clarificatory questions to Commissioner
Ople?
MR. SUMULONG: In the apportionment scheme being discussed by the
Committee on the Legislative with the assistance of the COMELEC, the
Province of Rizal was
given ten districts and these include the twelve municipalities of Rizal which
were integrated into Metro Manila. What then will be the fate of this
understanding?
MR. OPLE: This was precisely the nub of the question put by the Chairman of
the Committee on the Legislative and my answer was that it will no longer be
necessary.
MR. SUMULONG: How would that effect also the redistricting in the Province
of Bulacan?
MR. OPLE: I have made a manifestation to the Committee on behalf of
Commissioner Natividad and myself and I hope that Commissioner Soc
Rodrigo also
shares this that if we cannot be responsible for Valenzuela in Bulacan,
since it will not be part of the political subdivision known as the Province of
Bulacan, then why should Valenzuela be incorporated into Bulacan just for
purposes of redistricting? And so, in that respect, we do not mind Valenzuela
being redistricted within the context and framework of the existing entity
known as the National Capital Region.
MR. SUMULONG: But Valenzuela can no longer be considered as integrated
into Metro Manila because Metro Manila has disappeared now by virtue of
Section 1 of
the Article on Local Governments.
MR. OPLE: The draft provision that is now pending before the Commission,
Madam President, precisely seeks to rescue Metro Manila from constitutional
limbo
by providing for its existence as a special geographical political subdivision.
However, it will be relocated according to the consensus on the floor from
its place now in Section 1, following the enumeration of political subdivisions,
to Section 6 which deals with the power of local government units to group
themselves, if they consider this beneficial for their common good. So, in
effect, I see the legal situation as one where, as the Chairman of the
Committee
on Local Governments pointed out, the law creating the Metro Manila
Commission, P.D. No. 824, having been sustained by the Supreme Court as
being
constitutional just very recently, the Metropolitan Manila government will
continue to exist under a valid law until this is amended or repealed.
MR. SUMULONG: Metro Manila has ceased to exist, but we still have the
National Capital Region. So, would it not be better, and I think it will be more
in
accordance with the facts, if in Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative
Department we say that the apportionment of districts will cover not only the
provinces and cities but also the National Capital Region, that will cover
Valenzuela and the 12 municipalities of Rizal integrated in Metro Manila?
MR. OPLE: The Commissioner is also prepared to make the supreme sacrifice
of allowing towns of Rizal origin to be redistributed within the context of the
National Capital Region.
MR. SUMULONG: May I just ask one more question. I understand that the
Commissioner is of the opinion that Metro Manila, as created by P.D. No. 824
of
President Marcos, no longer exists.
MR. OPLE: It continues to exist until the law is deemed repealed or amended,
Madam President. I am not quoting my own views but the interpretation of
this
legal situation made by the Chairman of the Committee on Local
Governments, meaning that Metro Manila continues to exist until the law
creating it, which
has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court, is deemed
superseded, repealed or amended.
MR. SUMULONG: So, until Congress takes action on the Gentlemans
amendment by enacting a law recognizing special political subdivision in
metropolitan
areas, what will be the situation of the 12 municipalities of Rizal and one
municipality of Bulacan?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, they will remain, according to this
interpretation, in that entity known as the National Capital Region or
Metropolitan Manila.
MR. SUMULONG: So, in the interim, is it still the opinion of the Commissioner
that we have to follow P.D. No. 824 of President Marcos?
MR. OPLE: I am sustaining, on my own account, the interpretation of the
Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments, that is so.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I intervene. I think the Committee on
Transitory Provisions has adopted a provision that all existing presidential
decrees shall be valid until set aside by Congress. In view of that provision,
P.D. No. 824 shall continue until repealed or amended by Congress.
MR. SUMULONG: If the opinion of the Committee is that P.D. No. 824 is still in
existence and should be followed, we should note that it provides for a
commission form of government in Metro Manila. But there has never been a
commission. P.D. No. 824 was never implemented correctly because instead
of
creating a commission to govern Metro Manila, there was only one person
who governed Metro Manila, and that was the former First Lady, Mrs. Imelda
Marcos.
So if we are going to follow that decree until Congress enacts this law
mentioned in the amendment of Commissioner Ople, then Mr. Lina, who was
appointed
by the new government as Officer-in-Charge or Acting Governor of Metro
Manila, has no legal basis for acting as such because under P.D. No. 824
there
should be a commission, not a governor. Are we going to allow that in the
meantime?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I again intervene. There is a provision

embodied in the new Civil Code that the disuse or non-application of any law
does
not repeal the same. So, the fact that it is not implemented does not mean
that P.D. No. 824 is already repealed. Now, considering that Mr. Lina is the
officer-in-charge, then he is deemed, for legal purposes, the Metro Manila
Commission until the incumbent President appoints the members of the
commission.
MR. SUMULONG: Upon what basis is Mr. Lina occupying the position of Acting
Governor of Metro Manila or OIC when according to P.D. No. 824 the
governing
body in Metro Manila should be a commission?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair supposes we are not now involved in discussing
the authority of Mr. Lina but at least one problem seems to bother the
Commission
and the two Gentlemen; that is, the existence of the National Capital Region.
We have to admit that it is still there. Can this problem not be solved in
the Article on Transitory Provisions and in the proposed ordinance of the
legislative department referring to this Article on Local Governments? I think
whatever we may think about what we should do with the NCR can be
settled there as a temporary measure, as a compromise.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I agree, Madam President, that is a possibility. If we want to
do so, there is nothing in this draft provision that will prevent the
Commission from tacking, let us say, a provisional remedy to this problem to
the Article on Transitory Provisions.
MR. SUMULONG: Thank you, Madam President.
I also thank Commissioner Ople.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee gladly accepts the
amendment.
FR. BERNAS: I have some clarificatory questions.
Will this entity have legislative authority?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, it is not made explicit in the draft provision but
the contemplation of the proponents is really to have Congress enact a law
creating a quasi-legislative assembly consisting of the mayors of the
component cities and municipalities themselves who will then be in a
position to
enact rules that will be consistent with the ordinances that their own
municipal councils shall provide.
FR. BERNAS: So, it could be empowered to exercise the usual general police
power, the power of eminent domain and the power to tax for purposes of
supporting the basic services?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think that is a very splendid interpretation of the intent of
the proponents.
FR. BERNAS: I thank Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how will it read now?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, it reads: THE CONGRESS MAY, BY LAW,
CREATE A SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INCLUDING THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL
REGION, SUBJECT TO A PLEBISCITE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11 HEREOF.
THE COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES SHALL RETAIN THEIR BASIC
AUTONOMY AND SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. THE METROPOLITAN
AUTHORITY THAT MAY THEREBY BE CREATED SHALL LIMIT ITS JURISDICTION
TO BASIC SERVICES
REQUIRING COORDINATION.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this part now of Section 1 or of Section 6?
MR. NOLLEDO: It will be the first part of Section 6, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before we vote on this reformulated section, may we
request a clean copy.
MR. RODRIGO: I second the suggestion that we ask for a clean copy; but
meanwhile, I would like to ask the Committee if they will agree to some
modifications and amendments. From what I heard, the wording says: THE
CONGRESS MAY, BY LAW, CREATE A SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION . . .
Why is that singular? Does it mean that this authorizes the creation of only
one political subdivision? I heard Commissioner Ople mention that a similar
subdivision may be created in Cebu or in Davao.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, is Commissioner Rodrigo suggesting that we
convert this singular word into plural?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: We accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: I thank Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: So, instead of A SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION, it becomes plural. We add an S to SUBDIVISION and
eliminate A.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have another question. I think the purpose of the proposal is to maintain
the powers of the mayors. But the wording, as read, mentions only legislative
assemblies. Should we not add LOCAL EXECUTIVES so this part reads:
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLIES.
MR. OPLE: That is indeed the purpose, so we want to thank Commissioner
Rodrigo for making up for that omission. So LOCAL EXECUTIVES will be
introduced.
MR. NOLLEDO: The proposal now reads: THE CONGRESS MAY, BY LAW,
CREATE SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS INCLUDING THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
SUBJECT TO A PLEBISCITE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11 HEREOF. THE
COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES SHALL RETAIN THEIR BASIC
AUTONOMY AND SHALL BE ENTITLED
TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. THE
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY THAT MAY THEREBY BE CREATED SHALL LIMIT ITS
JURISDICTION TO BASIC
SERVICES REQUIRING COORDINATION.

MR. OPLE: Madam President, just a minute. I think the Muoz Palma
amendment is not reflected here, so instead of INCLUDING before THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL
REGION, we place SUCH AS.
MR. DAVIDE: I propose to delete INCLUDING THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
REGION because we recognize the possibility of the creation of more than
one metropolitan
authority.
MR. OPLE: No, it reads SUCH AS THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION.
MR. DAVIDE: Even then, because that would not be necessary. It would be
superfluous.
MR. OPLE: For purposes of enlisting the support of eight million Metro
Manilans behind this Constitution. . .
MR. DAVIDE: They would be happy already if we have this provision, even if
we do not mention NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION.
THE PRESIDENT: So long as the National Capital Region is recognized in a
transitory provision?
MR. OPLE: In that context, I think we have no difficulty, Madam President; we
THE PRESIDENT: How about the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee also accepts the amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized
MR. SUAREZ: May we just clarify one point from the distinguished
Gentleman, Honorable Ople. When he mentioned the creation being subject
to a plebiscite,
was he thinking in terms of a plebiscite for the whole country?
MR. OPLE: No, Madam President, this contemplates a plebiscite for all the
qualified voters of the National Capital Region.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman was not thinking in terms of, say, seeking the
decision of the people in the whole province in the case of Rizal but only in
those municipalities affected.
MR. OPLE: It is a matter of time perspective, I believe. In 1975, the National
Capital Region was created partly out of the towns of Rizal and Bulacan.
Since then, how many years have elapsed? Eleven years, and according to
some of the mayors I met this morning, that was a shotgun wedding in 1975
to which
they had to submit since they had no choice. But they have enjoyed their
live-in status among themselves since 1975, and now, having gotten so
accustomed
to each others company, they would rather retain, they would rather live
under the same roof at this time. So, I think, considering the time that has
elapsed since 1975, the plebiscite can justifiably be confined to what is now
known as the National Capital Region.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, if we confine our questions to the National
Capital Region, the Commissioner would not think of submitting the matter
to a
further plebiscite to the provinces of Bulacan and Rizal who would be vitally
affected?
MR. OPLE: If I were a political revanchist, I would insist on a plebiscite
including Bulacan and Rizal, but I yield to the realities of history, Madam
President.
MR. SUAREZ: So when the Commissioner speaks of plebiscite, he is excluding
the possibility that the provinces of Bulacan and Rizal ought not to be
consulted further in the continued operation of the National Capital Region?
MR. OPLE: It could be a highly distortive situation where the two provinces
are allowed to vote after 11 years of separation, Madam President.
What is the prescription period for missing husbands and wives?
MR. SUAREZ: I think it is seven years.
MR. OPLE: In the Civil Code, I think it is seven years. Here, the separation has
been 11 years, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Suarez through?

MR. SUAREZ: Yes, thank you, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: May we also ask some questions for clarification?
MR. FOZ: I am not sure whether this point has been touched on before by
other Commissioners, but I just would like to be clarified on this.
What exactly is the relation between the component cities and municipalities
of the region and such metropolitan authority? Is it a relationship of
principal and agent?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I think what is new about this concept is that
the municipalities and cities retain basic autonomy. We will recall that in
1975
the legislative power was taken away from all the cities and municipalities by
the Metro Manila Commission. They also lost a lot of their powers, not only
of passing their own ordinances but also of exercising autonomy over their
own budget which must be ratified by the Metro Manila Commission although
they
are dealing with their own internal resources. And so, I would hesitate to
describe them as agents of the Metropolitan Manila Authority. On the other
hand,
the Metropolitan Manila Authority in this case emanates from the collectivity
of the cities and municipalities which are the component units. Madam
President.
MR. FOZ: I thank the Commissioner.
Here, he enumerated some of the services which such a Metropolitan Manila
Authority may provide or take charge of, and these include drainage, flood
control, zoning and land use, traffic and transport management, garbage
collection and dump sites and, possibly, as he also said, health and peace
and
order. As I see it, this Metropolitan Manila Authority would be exercising
most, if not all, of the functions regarding the basic services of component
cities and municipalities. So what else would be left to the cities and
municipalities to exercise?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, these basic services will be neatly segregated
in the law that Congress will pass. We merely provided in the explanatory
note
examples of such services that may be coordinated under the Metropolitan
Manila Authority. Let us take garbage collection and dump sites. Between
Rizal and
Mandaluyong, if they do not have this coordination under a metropolitan
system of governance, the Municipality of San Juan can construct an abattoir
right
on the border of Mandaluyong or Pasig where there is, let us say, a first class
residential subdivision. Or in the case of flood control, drainage systems,
we can have one town unloading its water on another town without even
being aware of it. Instead of easing up a flood situation, this can actually
aggravate the problem. So it is in that sense that we cited examples of basic
services where supramunicipal coordination is necessary in order to avoid
absurdities, conflicts, wastes and even, let us say, wasteful conflicts in
jurisdiction among the component cities and towns.
MR. FOZ: Does the Gentleman envision that the governing body of the
Authority itself will be composed of the mayors of component cities and
municipalities?
MR. OPLE: Yes, that is the contemplation of this provision, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: And I understand that the Committee has accepted this
amendment to be the first portion of Section 6.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is right.
MR. FOZ: The difference between this amendment and the former provision
of Section 6 is that while this amendment would mandate that such an
Authority be
created by Congress, in the second portion of Section 6 now, this pooling of
resources, coordination and cooperation in the provision for services is to be
voluntary on the part of local government units.
MR. OPLE: Yes. So, in Section 6 now, if this is approved by the body, the first
part will consist of an aggroupment of municipalities and cities by law
and, in the second instance, it will be a voluntary mode of association among
like-minded local government units for their common benefit.
MR. FOZ: Would the Commissioner say that Section 7 is also somewhat
related, not only to his amendment, but also to Section 6?
MR. OPLE: Section 7, Madam President, if I read this section right, refers to
regional development councils composed of local government officials with
such adequate powers as may be prescribed by law. And I think this has
been introduced in the context of the existing regional development bodies
of the
National Economic and Development Authority, which are really coordinating
bodies for the purpose of allocating infrastructure budgets to provinces and
municipalities within a region without giving them any higher status than as
regional development councils, the planning and recommendatory bodies in
the
chain of command of the National Economic and Development Authority.
MR. FOZ: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. SARMIENTO: In the light of the Suarez interpellation and clarificatory
questions, and in the light of the Rodrigo amendment, will Commissioner
Ople
yield to some minor amendments?
MR. SARMIENTO: For instance, on line 4, after the phrase SUBJECT TO A
PLEBISCITE, will Commissioner Ople be willing to accept the addition of the
words
IN THE POLITICAL UNIT OR UNITS DIRECTLY AFFECTED? This is an offshoot of
the interpellation made by Commissioner Suarez.
MR. OPLE: May I refer that to the Committee which has now acquired
jurisdiction over the amendment, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: That amendment, Madam President, is no longer necessary
because we have placed the words AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11 HEREOF
and, referring to
Section 11, we say in a plebiscite in the political unit or units directly
affected. So by referring to Section 11, I think that will be a superfluity.
MR. SARMIENTO: I withdraw my amendment, Madam President.
Now, in view of the Rodrigo amendment, will Commissioner Ople be willing to
include the word DEPARTMENT after EXECUTIVE, so it will read: SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLIES? This was not included when the Committee Chairman read the
entire section.
MR. OPLE: May I refer this to the Committee, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will Commissioner Sarmiento repeat the question please.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am proposing the inclusion of the word
DEPARTMENT after EXECUTIVE, so that it will read: SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
THEIR
OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. If we
will note, other sections include the word department after executive.
MR. NOLLEDO: But what we have here is the word EXECUTIVES plural
so that the phrase reads: TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVES AND
LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLIES. This is to separate EXECUTIVES from the word
ASSEMBLIES, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: I thank the Commissioner for that clarification.
And one last point: Will Commissioner Ople be willing to delete the word
BASIC before AUTONOMY, so that the proposal reads: SHALL RETAIN
THEIR
AUTONOMY AND SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVES
AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I would have difficulties about omitting BASIC
because I think we want to build a bias into this provision against the
possible
undue encroachment of a metropolitan authority on the autonomous powers
of the component cities and municipalities.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam President, for the clarifications.
I will not insist on my proposed amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: There had been amendments regarding the recognition of . . .
EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. May I propose a general
wording so that
it should just read: THE COMPONENT UNITS SHALL RETAIN THEIR POWERS,
FUNCTIONS AND PREROGATIVES AS REGULAR POLITICAL UNITS. So it will

encompass everything.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, as far as I am concerned, I think the
present words are more emphatic and specific, considering that all
component units of
Metro Manila area had lost their legislative assemblies. The purpose here is
to reinstate their legislative assemblies.
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely, as regular political units, because there may be some
functions which are not included in the executive and the legislative bodies.
The point of Commissioner Sarmiento is that there may be some others but if
we retain their powers, functions and prerogatives as regular political units,
we give everything back to them.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I would like to insist on retaining LOCAL
EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES, without prejudice to adding a
phrase or a
clause that will complete the autonomy of the local component units.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide restate his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: It says: THE COMPONENT UNITS OF THE METROPOLITAN
AUTHORITY SHALL RETAIN ALL THEIR POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND
PREROGATIVES AS REGULAR POLITICAL
UNITS.
MR. OPLE: I have no objection to having this included unless it unduly
clutters the sentence.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee regrets that it cannot
accept the amendment, and we join Commissioner Ople in his observations.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the body now have a clean copy of the Ople
amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to make a statement that the words BASIC
AUTONOMY can be considered substantially equivalent to the words as
regularly
organized or as regularly established.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: While waiting for the text to be distributed, I ask that
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I rise on a question of privilege.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, what is the question of privilege of Commissioner
Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: Yesterday, there was an accusation here that I made a
misrepresentation. I believe I am entitled to a quick resolution of that
accusation now.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF COMMISSIONER MONSOD
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Journal says:
Thereupon, Mr. Villacorta advised that one misinformation given to the
Members was that Minister Jose Concepcion is against constitutionalizing
protectionism. He stated that he would like to get hold of the advertisement
alluded to by a Member who said it, in reply to which, Mr. Monsod stated that
he was the one who issued the statement. Mr. Villacorta suggested that the
matter be discussed in a caucus on Monday because there were other
matters
mentioned that were contrary to economic facts.
Mr. Monsod contended that the record of the caucus which was already
incorporated in the Record of the Commission would bear out that all he said
was that
Minister Jose Concepcion was against constitutionalizing protectionism in
Section 1 of the Article which statement was based on his personal interview
with
the Minister. He also urged that a public apology be made by those who said
they were misled by him, if it would be proven that he was correct.
Now, quoting myself, the minutes of the caucus states on page 4;
Secondly, I want to tell you that this morning, I think, Minister Jose
Concepcion has been quoted or has been mentioned in the ad. I talked to
Minister
Jose Concepcion this morning, and he said he is against constitutionalizing
permanent and absolute protectionism in the Constitution because that is
bad
for Philippine industry because he is in favor of the program. He just wants to
give time for the industry to recover, which is what we are putting here,
when we say that they should be protected from unfair competition. It would
be unfair at this time if they are not given protection when they are
recovering from the economic debacle.
I would like to read a letter dated August 16, 1986, Madam President, for the
record. It was typed with difficulty because I believe it was typed
personally by the one who sent the letter since he said he wanted me to
have it this morning and he had no time to go to his secretary The letter
says:
Dear Chris,
I refer to our conversation yesterday regarding the ad by the Coalition
addressed to the ConCom.
This will confirm my statement to you that I did not see the ad before it was
published.
I am in favor of a statement incorporating in the Constitution the
responsibility of the State in promoting the industrialization of the economy.
I am in favor of also incorporating a provision that promote the viability and
growth of domestic industries. I do not subscribe to an indefinite
protection of industries to be incorporated in the Constitution. We should
leave to the Legislature the responsibility of enacting the necessary
legislation given the situation and circumstances. A direct statement in our
Constitution regarding protectionism may not provide us with the necessary
flexibility as we pursue our programme to gain market access for our exports
during this period of reconstruction where we do not have the purchasing
power
to buy the products to be produced by the domestic market. It may invite
unnecessary retaliation. Besides, Philippine industries are in agreement that
our
final objective is to look at the world as our market; and given an increased
purchasing power to our people, our large domestic and ASEAN markets, and
the
Philippine entrepreneurial drive, we shall be another Japan. This strategy
requires reciprocity.
We also agreed that Filipino enterprises are entitled to protection such as

against dumping, when they are in their infant stage and when they need
temporary relief from recession until they reach normal capacity utilization
such as the present time.
I hope this serves as a useful clarification.
Regards,
Jose Concepcion, Jr.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
MR. VILLACORTA: When I arrived two hours ago, I talked to Commissioner
Villegas, with a request that there be a more civil manner of resolving this
question possibly in a caucus involving a small number of Commissioners.
I was caught by surprise. I am not prepared to answer Commissioner Monsod
because I was hoping that this matter would be resolved.
And so, may I request a suspension of the session for a few minutes, Madam
President.
I, was 12:14 p.m.
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I would like to mention that my
statement yesterday was based on the understanding that Minister
Concepcions view was

contained in an ad. Now that the matter had been clarified, then for the sake
of the unity of our Constitutional Commission, I would like to withdraw my
statement.
There was no intention at all to impute deception to Commissioner Monsod,
and I am sorry for having attributed to him misinformation. (Applause)
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I thank Commissioner Villacorta for his
graciousness; and in the same spirit of unity and goodwill of this
Commission, I
accept his statement. (Applause)
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, I ask that the matter be closed.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter is closed.
MR. UKA: Madam President.
MR. UKA: Madam President, just one statement. I thank Chris Monsod
because he is living up to his name Christian, which is forgiveness.
recognized for an important point.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with due respect to our Committee
Chairman, the members of the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony and this
august body, may I respectfully reserve my right to file a motion for
reconsideration with respect to some items in Section 1.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all right.

MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Garcia be recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, I would also like to ask very respectfully for a
reconsideration of certain items particularly regarding competition in
Section 1 of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, consistent with what had been expressed by
Commissioners Villacorta and Monsod, I move that the manifestations
yesterday which
became the source of the happy settlement this morning be stricken off the
record.
motion is approved.
With respect to the final text of the amendment to Section 1 which the
Committee has approved and we will recommend for approval by the
Commission in a few
minutes, may I move that this amendment be transferred to a separate
section immediately preceding Section 6 of the draft Article?
MR. NOLLEDO: We have no objection, Madam President. We accept the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we proceed now to vote on this?

MR. COLAYCO: This is one simple amendment which I have cleared with the
Chairman of the Committee. The last sentence of the amended proposal
reads as
follows: THE METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY THAT MAY THEREBY BE CREATED
SHALL LIMIT ITS JURISDICTION TO BASIC SERVICES REQUIRING
COORDINATION.
My proposed amendment will read like this: THE JURISDICTION OF THE
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY THAT WILL THEREBY BE CREATED SHALL BE
LIMITED TO BASIC SERVICES
REQUIRING COORDINATION.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee gladly accepts the
amendment.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this new section as proposed by
Commissioner Ople and as amended by Commissioner Colayco, please raise
their
hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor, none against and no abstention; the
This is just a brief manifestation for the record. The authors of this
amendment besides myself are Commissioners Nolledo, Calderon, Tingson,
Rosales,
Alonto, de Castro, Monsod, Davide, Bennagen, Rigos, Regalado, Jamir, Muoz
Palma, Aquino, Bernas, Rodrigo and Colayco.
MR. RAMA: I move that we suspend the session.
It was 12:50 p.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is just one more amendment to Section
1.
May I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized?
I am hoping that the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Local
Governments will just accept my very simple amendment so that I do not
have to explain
it. Anyway, the proposed amendment is on line 8, and this will also affect
Section 11 on the word barrios. We propose to change it to BARANGAYS.
May we
know the reaction of the Committee, Madam President?
MR. NOLLEDO: I deeply regret, Madam President, that I cannot accept the
amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, Madam President, within my time limit I will
have to be a little bit expansive on my explanation why I am proposing the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may please proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: In the first place, the use of the term barangay has a
historical significance. In the book of Mr. Onofre D. Corpuz, entitled The
Philippines, published by Prentice Hall in 1976, he said, and I quote:
The community was called barangay named after the boat that brought
the original migrants from their homes in Malaysia and Indonesia. Each boat
carried
an extended family group consisting of the head and his immediate family,
as well as the families of his children, his brothers and sisters, and the aged
kinfolk. From the year 1565 to 1898, the headman in the Philippines was
called the cabesa de barangay. He was the lowest but a crucial
administrative
figure.
Yesterday, Madam President, the Manila Bulletin front-paged the picture of an

ancient boat above the story. Balanghays Found in Butuan. The story goes:
This boat, believed to have been used by early Filipino traders between 320
A.D. and 1250 A.D., were discovered in swampy areas in Libertad about five
kilometers from the city. The boats are three to fifteen meters long, officials
at the National Museum said. Six more of the ancient boats used by early
Filipinos have been found in the area. The modern-day term barangay is
derived from the name of the boat.
Now the Committee does not seem to agree with the word barangay
because it has some Marcos connotation. I think we are carrying this Marcos
bogey a bit
too far, Madam President, because we seem to see Marcos in everything we
do in this Commission. The reality about the origin of this word is from a
purely
historical point of view and it would be good advice to settle the
appropriateness of this amendment in that context.
Secondly and this is more important all our laws, like P.D. No. 1508,
establishing a system of settling disputes at the barangay level, approved
June
11, 1978; and the Local Government Code, BP Blg. 337, approved in 1983;
and other laws, not to mention the tons of textbooks and commentaries on
these
laws, have always used the word barangay.
The word barrio has become a thing of the past. It is already buried and
there is no sense of reincarnating it. The Committee suggested instead a
change
of the nomenclature in the existing laws. Why do we have to make our life
harder than it already is, Madam President? This is unwise because then we
will
have to call our punong barangay, punong baryo, the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law, Katarungang Pambaryo Law, which are not very nice
to hear. All the
implementing forms of the barangay justice system will have to be changed,
and the Ministry of Local Governments and the Ministry of Education and
Culture
will have tremendous paperwork because all books and even circulars will
have to be rewritten, all because of a single word. I do not think it is worth
the
change.
Finally, Madam President, if we read the news reports on the political
situation in the Philippines from foreign publications like Time, Newsweek,
Asiaweek
Far Eastern Economic Review, etc., it will be readily noticed that reference is
always made to barangays, not barrios.
I think I have said enough, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, will the Committee please be allowed to
react.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Chairman of the Committee will please go ahead.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I give the reasons why the Committee objects to the
use of the word barangay, it is not true that punong barangay will
become
punong baryo; it will be punong nayon; Katarungang Pambarangay will
be Batas ng Katarungang Pangnayon. So nayon seems to be more
beautiful. If
the Commissioner will ask Sister Christine Tan, she will tell him that she
dislikes the word barangay because according to her, the heads of the
barangay
I do not know how she equates it that way are the mercenaries and
those who were highly subservient to Ferdinand Marcos without thinking of
the
interests of the populace of their respective barangays. ELC
But my reasons, Madam President, are the following, based on consultations
with persons in different parts of the country:
(1) The word barrio appears in old titles, in surveys, government files and
documents from the Spanish regime up to the present, even in titles known
as
Composicion Con El Estado so voluminous that they can easily
overwhelm the various decrees of President Marcos;
(2) I notice that the names of various schools in many parts of the country,
Madam President, still carry the word barrio;
(3) I agree with the unanimous decision of the League of Governors and City
Mayors that the word barrio should be reinstated. I met those governors
and
city mayors through the courtesy of Commissioner Jose Calderon and his
wife, Governor Calderon, in Quezon City; and
(4) This is, I think, a very important argument, Madam President. In the 1973
Constitution, the word barrio was used in the Declaration of Principles and
in the Article on Local Governments. Without amending the 1973
Constitution, Mr. Marcos issued decrees using the word barangay instead of
barrio. Even
the Freedom Constitution of the present regime reproduced some portions of
the 1973 Constitution which still carried the word barrio.
To my mind, the word barangay, Madam President, is a constitutional
bandit. It is a violation of the 1973 Constitution, and for us now to put
barangay
in the 1986 Constitution is to constitutionalize a constitutional violation.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, that is precisely why we are trying to
correct this mistake where we use the word barangay in all our laws while
we use
barrio in our own Constitution.
But if it is not asking too much, Madam President, may I ask Commissioner
Bennagen to comment at least on the historical context of my discussion on
the
word barangay, because I am looking at this from the historical point of
view.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized, if he desires to
answer.
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me say that I shall speak as an anthropologist and not
as a Commissioner, and the citations given by Commissioner Maambong are
correct in
relation to the origin of the word and the substantive meaning of balangay.
These are really the same cognate words, like balay and bahay.
Barangay
is the same word except that there are some shifts in linguistic terms.
But I think that is a different consideration altogether from the issue that was
raised by the Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments.
MR. RAMA: I think the amendment has been sufficiently debated on, so may I
ask for a vote.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Before we vote, may I ask the Chairman of the
Committee to answer a few questions.

MR. DE LOS REYES: Is the Chairman aware of the fact that the poblacion itself
is divided into several barangays? In other words, barangay does not
necessarily mean nayon or barrio, but within the heart of the poblacion,
there are several barangays. The purpose is to have a headman there which
helps in keeping peace and order, in collecting taxes, in seeing to it that the
youth do not become victims of drugs, and all those things. So there is
really nothing wrong with the word barangay, if we will only just remove
our prejudice against the Marcos era.
MR. NOLLEDO: As the Gentleman knows, perhaps we have different political
persuasions, so the answer is obvious.
I submit to the body.
MR. RODRIGO: From what I know, our political subdivisions are provinces,
municipalities, barrios and sitios. Barrios are subdivided into sitios.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that we take a vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment is clear; it is just to change the
word barrios on line 8 of Section 1 to BARANGAYS, is that correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President, and it will also affect the same line
of Section 11.
VOTING
Commissioner Maambong, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor and 12 against; so the amendment is
approved. (Applause)
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized
to amend Section 2.

MR. RODRIGO: On Section 2, line 13, I propose to place a period (.) after the
word structure, then delete the words with an effective system of recall.
So the first sentence of Section 2 will read: The Congress shall enact a local
government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable
local government structure, allocate among the different, et cetera.
MR. NOLLEDO: May we hear the Commissioners reasons for this
amendment?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, we have reduced the term of office of local
officials to only three years. Now, if we will have a system of recall, I think a
three-year term is too short to still interrupt it in mid-term, by using the
reserve power of recall, and have a snap election to elect an official for the
remainder of the very short term.
If we remember, the system of recall calls for an election which is expensive
and divisive. Furthermore, the elected government official will be under
continuous harassment. In municipalities, there are ward leaders, not to say
warlords, who can easily muster 20 percent of the votes, which is all that
is needed to initiate a recall. It is even possible that within three years, there
might be two recalls.
Even if the people made a mistake, and they find out after one or two years
that they had made a mistake in electing a certain municipal mayor or even
a
certain councilor, they would have only one more year to wait until the next
election to right the mistake that they had committed.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee has decided to leave the
question to the body.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized.
May I address a few questions to the distinguished proponent?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed. Commissioner Rodrigo will
answer Commissioner Suarez.
MR. RODRIGO: Gladly.

I suppose the Commissioner is aware of the fact that under Section 2, Article
XI of the 1973 Constitution, the same phrase with an effective system of
recall appears. Is the Commissioner aware of that situation?
MR. RODRIGO: Not at the moment.
MR. SUAREZ: Under Section 2, Article XI of the 1973 Constitution, exactly the
same phrase is contained which reads: and accountable local government
structure with an effective system of recall. LGM
Is the Commissioner also aware of the fact that a Local Government Code
has been enacted by the Batasang Pambansa which is known as Batas
Pambansa Blg.
337?
MR. RODRIGO: I am not, at the moment.
MR. SUAREZ: To my knowledge, under Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, there is no
provision on an effective system of recall. Does not the Commissioner think
that it
is best that we should continue to retain this particular phrase only as a
safeguard for possible situations where local public officials would become
highly abusive immediately after taking office?
MR. RODRIGO: That would be most rare. I think the evil that recall may
produce will be greater than the benefit that can accrue from it. But let me
differentiate the 1973 Constitution from the proposed Constitution. Under the
1973 Constitution, the term of office of local officials was four years. Now
we are reducing it to only three years.
May I add also that I do not remember the particular provision of the 1973
Constitution about recall, nor do I remember that it was ever used. It is a
dead letter. So, either it is used or it is not used. If it is not used, like it was
not used under the 1973 Constitution, then it is a dead letter. Why
place it here? But if it is used, I will say that it can be abused.
MR. SUAREZ: So, if the Committee on the Legislative would finally decide to
give a four-year term to the local officials, would the Commissioner still
insist on his proposal to eliminate the said phrase?
MR. RODRIGO: That is a hypothetical question . . . but my objection would be
less.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank the Commissioner.

MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I speak against the proposed
amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The thrust of the argument of Commissioner Rodrigo is
that inasmuch as the term of office of local officials will only be three years,
there will be no need for recall. From my experience it takes only one month
for a bad mayor to make a mess out of his town. I know of a town where
there
used to be peace and order. There used to be no gambling and no
beerhouses. However, in a two-month period, since this mayor was
supported by people who
maintain this kind of business, suddenly there were beerhouses, dancing
halls and cabarets, and gambling flourished in the town. With this kind of
local
officials, I think three years is long enough to do harm to his constituency
and, therefore, I maintain that we should retain this provision on recall.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we vote on this issue.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will put the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Rodrigo, which is to delete the phrase with an effective system of recall on
line 13,
to a vote.
As many as are in favor of this proposed amendment, please raise their
hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against the proposed amendment, please raise their hand.
The results show 7 votes in favor and 13 against; so the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized to
amend Section 2.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, this amendment is actually not mine, but I was
commissioned by a Commissioner to submit this on his behalf. At any rate,
this has
been cleared with the Committee. The amendment is on page 1, line 17 of

Section 2. After the word officials, add the phrase INCLUDING A PROVISION
AGAINST POLITICAL DYNASTIES to be followed by a comma (,). This is an
amendment submitted by Commissioner Cirilo Rigos which I would like to
cosponsor on
his behalf.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee gladly accepts the amendment.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will the Gentleman yield to a few questions.
MR. FOZ: Gladly.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I cannot recall this phrase POLITICAL DYNASTIES being
defined in this draft Constitution. I am in favor of banning this practice in our
political life, but for record purposes, what does the Commissioner mean by
POLITICAL DYNASTIES?
MR. NOLLEDO: May I answer that question?
MR. NATIVIDAD: It is a delicate question because the people are the ones
electing. This is a diminution of the power of the people to elect, so we must
be
circumspect with regard to this matter. I say so because, for instance, a son
does not even go home to the residence of his father, an incumbent, but he
wins on his own. The mere fact that he has blood relationship with his father
is a liability instead of an asset. There are instances of this nature. Would
this mean relationship with the incumbent? If he is no longer an incumbent,
would the members of his family still be disqualified to run for public office?
How far laterally should we rule that they are disqualified to offer themselves
for public office? RHLY
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may I now respond to the Commissioners
questions?
The basic proposition is that in a democracy such as ours, nobody is
indispensable as far as public service is concerned. It is true that certain
persons
may possess the necessary capabilities and special qualities to perform good
deeds in the public office, but that does not rule out the possibility that
others may have similar capabilities to serve the public good. So we cannot
say that a relative, let us say, of an incumbent is deserving of succeeding his
relative because of his special qualities and his capabilities or his

qualifications. The idea of a prohibition against the rise of political dynasties
is
essentially to prevent one family from controlling political power as against
the democratic idea that political power should be dispersed as much as
possible among our people. And the evils brought about by political
dynasties are so well-known to us, because they happened in the recent
political past.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But what are the parameters? This is a constitution and this
will be the mandate to our Congress to promulgate the laws. Would a
parameter
be the name of an incumbent? Are we referring to an incumbent whose sons
or daughters or wife will not be able to run? Or once a person is no longer an
incumbent, may he still run?
MR. FOZ: Madam President, precisely the provision says that Congress shall
enact a Local Government Code. We are giving Congress the authority to
spell out
how such a prohibition should be written into the Local Government Code. It
is up to Congress then to provide what the extent of the prohibition would
be.
We cannot write into this provision just how the prohibition will go or how far
it is going to extend.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Nevertheless, before we vote on this amendment, we would
like to be informed of its concept because if the proponent of the
amendment is
going to be unjust, then we have the right to vote against it. If the concept
being offered to us is just and fair, I think we have also the basis for
asking a clarification on this matter.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I comment on that, Madam President?
MR. NOLLEDO: There is a similar resolution that I filed before the Committee
on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles which
recommended that the prohibition shall not extend beyond the third degree
of consanguinity or affinity. It does not prohibit the son or the daughter of the
relative within that degree to run later on. It is only a matter of immediate
succession. An example is, if a governor has already run for reelection and
he could no longer run because there is already a prohibition his son wants
to run. Then the son can run. We will only prohibit the son while the governor
is incumbent. That is the concept. It is not an absolute prohibition. We want
to widen the political base to give a chance to poor but deserving
candidates. We want to avoid the possibility of taking advantage of the

position of the father. So that is the recommendation to the Congress.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, I would like to draw that as an explanation
because if a person is no longer incumbent and the heirs will be forever
banned
from running for public office, I do not think that will be fair, constitutionally
or statutorily.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, there is no everlasting ban. So I agree with the
Commissioner.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to express an observation that this proposed
amendment really goes to the basic question of who has the right of choice
in a
democracy. If indeed the electoral laws can be enforced with a good
COMELEC and so on, a provision in the Constitution that is based on a policy
of
exclusion so that the ultimate choice is not left to the people but that there is
a prescreening process so that we tell the people: You can only vote for
certain people we want you to vote for seems to me to be going against the
very principle of democratic elections. If we are seeking to be restrictive and
have an exclusionary provision in the Constitution, we have to be very clear
on what we mean and not just have a provision that can be interpreted in a
very wide latitude. I say so because this is a restrictive provision. It excludes
and it disqualifies. We should think very hard about this before we put
things in the Constitution that will deprive the people of the right to a full
choice as to who should be their local leaders.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I react to that. On the contrary, I think
it widens the political base. If we adopt a provision against political
dynasties as defined by Congress, we widen the political base or the political
opportunities on the part of poor but deserving candidates to run for public
office with a better chance of winning. In our country, we cannot deny that
there are many political dynasties and their existence has restricted the
political opportunity of young but deserving candidates.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to note that the ultimate objective in cleaning the
election process is to make sure that an elective office is accessible to all,
whether rich or poor. If we are going to say that in order to democratize we
will have to disqualify somebody, this does not sound right. Suppose there is
a qualified and deserving person, we are already instituting in the
Constitution a restriction on consecutive terms. We have these kinds of
restriction. We
do not have to go into this because I feel that this is too much of a restriction
and disqualification for deserving people. In the name of
democratization, we are really doing an undemocratic act.
Like Commissioner Natividad, we are a little disturbed about the parameters
of this prohibition against the so-called political dynasties. So may we seek
some clarification because, in answer to Commissioner Natividads queries, I
think the matter was limited to succession to an incumbent. May I give some
examples which may fall within the prohibition? Let us take the case of
Tarlac. We have a President who is from that place and she has very many
relatives
who might be interested in running for political positions in the Province of
Tarlac, say as congressman, as governor, or as mayor. Under this proposed
prohibitory resolution, would her brothers, sisters, in-laws, or relatives by
affinity or by consanguinity be precluded and prohibited from aspiring for
those positions?
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as I am concerned, we are talking of succession.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Let us take, for example, a governor who has grown old and
has run for two reelections as permitted by the Constitution, but now wants
his son
to continue to run for that same position. That is what we call political
dynasty.
MR. SUAREZ: So the Commissioner would not think of what happened during
the last regime where we had a President, a Metro Manila Governor, a
Governor of
Ilocos Norte, a Governor of Leyte and an Assembly-woman in Batasan. The
Commissioner is not thinking in terms like those.
MR. NOLLEDO: No. The situation the Commissioner is talking about seems to
involve nepotism. There is a prohibition on the appointment of relatives to
the
Cabinet, to the bureaus, et cetera, which is adopted by the Committee on the

Legislative.
MR. SUAREZ: With due respect, I do not think that would partake of the
character of nepotism because those are elective positions. So the
Commissioner is
not thinking in those terms when he defines political dynasties?
MR. NOLLEDO: No.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we put this amendment to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further comments, we will put it to a vote.
Will Commissioner Foz repeat his amendment please?
MR. FOZ: On line 17, after the word officials, add the following words:
INCLUDING A PROVISION AGAINST POLITICAL DYNASTIES.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular amendment,
their hand.)
their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor, 19 against, and two abstentions; the
amendment is lost.
to amend Section 2.
The first amendment is submitted jointly with Commissioner Monsod which is
to insert after the word structure on line 13, the following: INSTITUTED
THROUGH A SYSTEM OF DECENTRALIZATION. RBR
MR. NOLLEDO: Is there a comma after the word DECENTRALIZATION?

MR. DAVIDE: Yes, there is.
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On the same line 13, I move to delete the word an and to
change the words system of to MECHANISM FOR. Then on line 14, after the
word
recall, insert the following: INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM and a comma (,),
so the two lines will now read as follows: able (as a continuation of
accountable) local government structure INSTITUTED THROUGH A SYSTEM
OF DECENTRALIZATION, with effective MECHANISM FOR recall, INITIATIVE
AND REFERENDUM,
allocate among the different local government units.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the proponent please explain why he believes that
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM should apply to the local government units?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, it should apply because in the last section of the Article on
the Legislative, the Committee on the Legislative incorporated therein the
system of initiative and referendum, not only to be made applicable to the
National Assembly or the Lower House and the Senate, but also to local
legislative bodies. This was also later on approved by the Commission. It is
necessary that to give meaning to it and to mandate now its incorporation
insofar as its application to local governments is concerned, the same be
now mandated to be incorporated in the Local Government Code.
MR. NOLLEDO: With the word mandated it is mandatory on the part of
Congress to insert provisions on initiative and referendum in the Local
Government
Code. Am I right?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that is in line with the acceptance of the system of initiative
and referendum, not only for Congress but also for all other legislative
bodies.
MR. NOLLEDO: Do I understand it right that it shall be in the concept of
initiative and referendum as understood with respect to the Congress?
MR. DAVIDE: That would be practically the same in the matter of the people
enacting legislations or rejecting or approving laws enacted by the different
local legislative bodies.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the proposed amendment of
Is Commissioner Sarmiento going to say something?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I address a few questions to the
proponent?
MR. SARMIENTO: Does not Commissioner Davide think he is weakening the
local governments or the local bodies by instituting the system of recall,
initiative
and referendum?
We must remember that the local executive has to serve for three years.
With this system of recall, initiative and referendum, does not the
Commissioner
think we are virtually paralyzing our local executive and legislative bodies?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on the contrary, it will even strengthen the
democratization of the government. Besides, with a provision on referendum
and
initiative, we can be assured of responsive, accountable and responsible
local elective officials. There is always a sword of Damocles hanging over
their
heads, so they will always do the best they can because of the fear that the
public may preempt any particular act, if the local officials will not perform
such an act. If we have allowed it to the Congress of the Philippines, there is
no reason why we should not allow it to the local governments which are
really directly in touch with the people.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Davide must remember that in the Article on
Social Justice, we approved a section on popular organizations, that is,
virtually
giving strength to peoples power.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. That is precisely why we have to give some
political vehicle or instrument for it. How can these sectoral groups be heard
unless they will also be allowed initiation or rejection of laws through the
system of initiative and referendum? In short, that particular provision in

the Article on Social Justice would only be complemented by this specific
political vehicle for a more effective expression of their goals, desires or
objectives.
MR. SARMIENTO: Are we not multiplying the effects of peoples power? I ask
so because here we have to balance the strength of the local government
and
peoples power. Does not the Commissioner think we are giving more power,
more punch to peoples power, thereby weakening the local government?
MR. DAVIDE: We should always remember that in a republican government,
sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from the
people. Hence, with that provision in the Article on Social Justice, we are
really strengthening peoples power. With this provision I am proposing, we
would provide the political weapon or the political vehicle, not just a pressure
group. This is a genuine exercise of peoples power.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the proponents are beginning to repeat
themselves, so I ask that we take a vote.
MR. RODRIGO: May I just ask a question for clarification?
MR. RODRIGO: When I presented an amendment opposing recall, it was on
the basis that Congress was empowered to legislate a system for it. From the
answer
of Commissioner Nolledo, it seems that the purpose is not only to empower
Congress but to mandate it. Do I get it right?
MR. DAVIDE: It was used in the sense that the Local Government Code may
provide for an effective mechanism. It is no longer an effective system, but
an
effective mechanism for initiative, referendum or recall.
MR. RODRIGO: But is this mandatory?
MR. DAVIDE: It may be included in the Local Government Code.
MR. RODRIGO: It may be; meaning, it is not mandatory.
MR. DAVIDE: We leave it to Congress, but we must remember that under the
Article on the Legislative especially on initiative and referendum, pursuant to
the Gascon amendment, the Congress shall, as soon as possible, provide for
the mechanics of initiative and referendum.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to have a categorical answer. Is this provision
directory or mandatory?
MR. DAVIDE: I would say it is an authority granted to the Congress of the
Philippines.
MR. RODRIGO: So, it is not mandatory?
MR. DAVIDE: It is an authority and a power.
MR. MAAMBONG: I have one more point for clarification from the proponent.
We have just approved Section 1 wherein we defined the political
subdivisions of
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. When we say effective
MECHANISM FOR recall, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, are we referring to
all these
political subdivisions in their respective sphere? For example, in a barangay,
will Congress also provide for an effective mechanism for recall, initiative
and referendum, and so on with the provinces, cities and municipalities? Is
that it? RBR
MR. DAVIDE: This particular provision would relate to all the local government
units to be incorporated in the Local Government Code. It is up to Congress
to decide later whether this would be made applicable to the barangays. But
insofar as I am concerned, there is really no harm making it applicable even
to
the barangay officials.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is not the point. I am just trying to follow up the trend
of questioning of Commissioner Rodrigo, because when we say Congress
shall
enact a Local Government Code, and then we talk of the different local
government units, it would seem to me that Congress under this provision
should
enact a law with a provision for effective mechanism for recall, initiative and
referendum in all the local government units. But now, the Commissioner is
saying that Congress may or may not enact.
MR. DAVIDE: The answer was not with reference to that. My answer was with
respect to the effective mechanism for recall, initiative or referendum, but I
would consider the power and the authority of Congress to enact a Local
Government Code precisely to give the details on our perception of the local
governments. Without that particular law, I wonder how the local
governments can perform their functions. In short, Congress must take it
upon itself to
institute or promulgate the necessary laws to govern precisely the powers,
responsibilities, functions and duties of the different local government units.
MR. MAAMBONG: Maybe my question is not very clear. What I am trying to
ask is: When Congress enacts a Local Government Code, should Congress, in
that Local
Government Code, provide an effective mechanism for recall, initiative and
referendum for a barangay?
MR. DAVIDE: I would not be able to state now whether it will, but I would
suppose that it must, in order to make effective the decentralization and also
what is provided for in the last section of the Article on the Legislative
regarding initiative, recall and referendum.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is precisely the point of Commissioner Rodrigo. It is
either that Congress is mandated to enact that mechanism of recall, initiative
and
referendum or it is not. So when Congress enacts a Local Government Code
should it enact an effective mechanism for recall, initiative and referendum
for a
province, city or municipality? Probably the barangay will not be included.
What I mean is, it should be uniform and we should be very categorical about
it, that the exact mandate of the Constitution is to provide an effective
mechanism for recall, et cetera, for all local government units without
exception.
MR. DAVIDE: I would suppose so, because the Local Government Code will be
a general law applicable to all.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then I am satisfied with that answer.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the body is now ready to vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide on line
14 is to add the words INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM after the word recall.
As many as are in favor of this proposed amendment, please raise their

hand.)
their hand.)
The results show 17 votes in favor, 4 against, and 2 abstentions; the
recognized.
Madam President, my amendment is very simple. On line 16 of Section 2, I
move that we delete the word term because we have already approved
that the term
of office of the local officials shall be for three years.
accept the amendment because the word term in relation to appointment
may cover not
only elective positions but also appointive positions. Likewise, when we talk
of local government of officials, we do not necessarily circumscribe the term
to elective officials.
MR. DE CASTRO: The formulation here is that the Local Government Code
which Congress will pass shall provide for a term. What other appointive
officials
will these be?
MR. NOLLEDO: Appointive officials will include the provincial assessor,
provincial treasurer, provincial auditor, municipal auditor, municipal
assessor,
city assessor, and other administrative officials. Besides, even if there is
already a term in the Article on the Legislative, the Local Government Code
will just repeat the term stated therein to attain symmetry. So, the term is
with respect to appointive and elective officials.
MR. DE CASTRO: Will the provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers and
municipal assessors be appointed by local officials?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, it will be the Local Government Code that will
indicate the appointing power.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am already clarified; I withdraw my amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the last registered speaker is Commissioner
Rodrigo. This amendment is on Section 2.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, for the record, I just want to ask a question
on the last sentence which states:
No change in the existing form of local government shall take effect until
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose.
This refers to changes in the form of local government made by Congress,
does it not?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Is the plebiscite here nationwide?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think so because the structure of the government should be
uniform in all local political units.
MR. RODRIGO: So, any change in the form of local government in a law
enacted by Congress will not take effect until it is submitted and approved in
a
nationwide plebiscite. Is that it?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, but that is without prejudice to the pertinent provisions
on autonomous regions. Those autonomous regions have different
provisions.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more proponents of amendments
to Section 2. I move that we approve the entire Section 2 after it is read by
the
Chairman of the Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I hate to interrupt but in view of the

question of Commissioner Rodrigo, I have to stand up and ask further
questions on the
last sentence of Section 2, regarding the change in the existing form of local
government.
I think the Commissioner is aware that in the present formulation of the Local
Government Code, when we create a barangay, merge it or consolidate it
with
others, or abolish the same, it is not done by Congress but, according to the
provisions of the Local Government Code, by an ordinance either of the
sangguniang panlungsod in a city or the sangguniang panlalawigan of the
province. Will that provision be affected by this particular provision of Section
2?
MR. NOLLEDO: No. The Commissioner is talking of boundaries; we are talking
here of the form of local governments like city mayor, council, et cetera.
MR. MAAMBONG: My point is this: I will repeat the premise. In the case of
barangays, when we create, abolish, merge or do whatever with them, under
the
present formulation of the Local Government Code, it is not done by
Congress but through an ordinance of the sangguniang panlungsod of a city
or the
sangguniang panlalawigan of a province.
My question is: When we approve this last sentence, will it affect that
provision of the Local Government Code? I am afraid of what might happen
once the
Local Government Code is done away with. We can no longer change, merge,
abolish a barangay unless through a law passed by Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: I suggest the Commissioner refer to Section 11. He must be
referring to Section 11 which states:
No province, city, municipality or barangay may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with
the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political unit or
units directly affected.
MR. MAAMBONG: Precisely.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think that provision covers the situation the Commissioner
mentioned.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, I am aware of that.

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, but I insist that we are talking here of the existing form of
local government as indicated in the last sentence of Section 2. When we
abolish, we do not talk of any form anymore. We talk of the existence of the
government with respect to boundaries.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am fully aware of Section 11. But when we operationalize
the last sentence of Section 2, the sangguniang panlungsod or the
sangguniang
panlalawigan of the province can no longer effectively change, create or
abolish a barangay within the city or the province because this provision
does not
distinguish the form of local government unit; and under the present law this
can only take effect upon ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite called for that purpose. This is my only concern.
MR. NOLLEDO: I insist that in the Commissioners case, Section 11 applies.
The provision that he adverted to in the Local Government Code still exists in
accordance with the criteria established therein, but always subject to
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.
I really believe that there seems to be a misunderstanding or
misapprehension of the situation. So I believe that Section 11 specifically
covers the
situation the Commissioner mentioned.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, as far as the existing forms of local
government are concerned and I will particularize the barangay they
can still be
created, abolished, or merged through an ordinance of the sangguniang
panlalawigan or the sangguniang panlungsod under these provisions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Subject to the provisions of Section 11.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. Thank you very much.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I would like the proceedings abbreviated
especially since I see urgent signals from the Floor Leader, but it is
impossible for
some of us to vote intelligently on this question without some urgent
clarification of meanings of key words in the last sentence.
I am aware that this was borrowed from the 1973 Constitution, and since
1973 to date, there have been presumably some concrete experiences of the
nation on
how this last sentence has, in fact, operated.
Is the Committee aware of any instance when the existing form of local
government has been changed since 1973, so that it has required a national
plebiscite?
MR. NOLLEDO: We will notice that Mr. Marcos interpreted this provision in a
different way. For example, when he decreed P.D. No. 824, he abolished the
legislative councils in the constituent units of Metro Manila, and he submitted
the same allegedly to a referendum only within the metropolitan area.
So, in this case, we are not talking actually of the structure of government
affecting the entire country.
So the interpretation then of Mr. Marcos is that only the people of Metro
Manila area should participate in the plebiscite. I remember very well a news
item to that effect, because somebody was questioning that that should be
submitted to the entire Filipino nation. But Mr. Marcos, in consultation with
his
Minister of Justice, said that the existing structure referred only to the City of
Manila and did not refer to all other political units.
I think, although the referendum was rigged, there was assumed existence of
good faith.
So the Commissioners question is adequately answered.
MR. OPLE: We are not called upon to judge that plebiscite at this time, but is
the Chairman saying that this plebiscite actually took place in compliance
with this provision of the Constitution of 1973? Did it take place in Metro
Manila?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Now, outside of that limited and localized experience of the Metro
Manila form of government, there was no other change of government that
required a national plebiscite?
MR. NOLLEDO: I cannot remember, but if the Commissioner knows, will he
kindly enlighten the body.
MR. OPLE: Actually, I am seeking some illumination on this point because I
am not aware that there has been any change in the form of local
government
applicable to all local governments since 1973.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would say something, if the Commissioner will permit me.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Should Congress, for example, abolish the municipal council,
that means abolishing municipal councils in all political units known as
municipalities, then that should be ratified by the entire electorate in the
country because it affects the municipalities of the entire country.
MR. OPLE: That is a good concrete illustration of the sort I was looking for,
Madam President.
Just one last question. My concern is: Is there a quantum of change in the
form of local government that rises to a standard that will require a national
plebiscite in the absence of more concrete experience? This leads to the
question: Will the lawmaking power of Congress be subject to unusual
restraint in
the light of what I would call imminent threat from a constitutional
provision that if they do amend the Local Government Code to a degree that
can be
deemed substantial, then that law will have to be submitted to a nationwide
plebiscite?
MR. NOLLEDO: Perhaps the Committee will entertain a move to delete this
provision.
MR. OPLE: I move for its deletion right now because since 1973 it has not
proved useful enough to be availed of by the Congress of the Philippines or
by
other law-making bodies, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Commissioner does not mind, it was President Marcos
who placed it there. As a former member of the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, I
cannot remember whether that provision really formed part of the report of
the Committee on Local Governments.
The purpose of Mr. Marcos in placing that provision is that if the form of
government is in his favor, he wanted that it should not be changed
anymore. His
intention was to discourage the Batasang Pambansa, which may prove to be
not too subservient to him, from changing the structure of local government
so
soon.
MR. OPLE: If the Chairman believes that this vitiates the lawmaking power of
Congress, then I move for its deletion
MR. NOLLEDO: Is that in the form of an amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not in the form of a motion because a motion must be duly
seconded and shall still be submitted to the floor.
If the Commissioner puts that as an amendment, the Chairman gladly
accepts the amendment.
MR. OPLE: It is an amendment, and I thank the Commissioner for accepting
it.
MR. DAVIDE: If the last sentence is deleted, is it possible for Congress to
provide a parliamentary form of government for the local government units?
I
believe that the consensus of the Commission is to adopt the presidential
system. The existing local government units are patterned after the
presidential
system. If we delete the last sentence now, can the provision grant Congress
the authority to adopt the parliamentary system for the local government
units?
We go further. Can it also allow a sort of a federal system for the local
government units like the provinces and the cities?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, this is extending the horizons of possibilities to
their farthest limit. I think we should be able to trust the sense of
proportion of the Congress that will be elected under the aegis of this new
Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: In which case, I would strongly object to the amendment,
because there might be the possibility that Congress will adopt another type
of
government for the local government units which would be against the
presidential form. I am in favor of the parliamentary system, but I have to
respect
the decision of the Commission to adopt, in effect, the presidential system.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I react to the statement of
MR. NOLLEDO: We will find in the first portion of Section 2 that Congress is
mandated to enact a Local Government Code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure.
So even under that authority, Madam President, the legislature can also
adopt a parliamentary system if we follow the argument of Commissioner
Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: In which case that would be a prejudicial question. The
prejudicial question which the Commission will have to decide is whether or
not to
adopt a parliamentary system of government for the local government units.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I do not think that that is a prejudicial
question. We are tying the hands of Congress in determining the form of
government
that should be provided for in the Local Government Code. We do not have
the facilities here to conduct public hearings in order to determine what form
of
government the Congress should provide for.
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely.
MR. NOLLEDO. I think Congress will be guided by a high sense of patriotism,
including knowledgeability, in determining the structure of government that
should be provided for in the Local Government Code.
Besides, pending the enactment of a new Local Government Code under the
report of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, the
former Local
Government Code, which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, shall continue to be
effective until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the reason there is the necessity of the last
sentence. If the new Local Government Code will adopt a system other than
what is
now mandated in the Local Government Code, a plebiscite will be necessary.
I would state that it is wiser to retain the last sentence. Let us not engage
again in another constitutional adventurism, to quote Commissioner
Aquino.
MR. OPLE: This is not adventurism but superfluity, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that all that is to be decided is whether
or not to submit to a plebiscite any change in the existing form of
government.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Local Government Code will not be
submitted to a plebiscite. What should be decided is whether the Congress
shall enact a
Local Government Code with the provisions stated and authorized by Section
2 without the need to submit the same to a plebiscite.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the problem that is confronting us. The committee
report, as is, requires a plebiscite for a change.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, that is only after the Congress has fixed a form of
government for local government units, and then there is a need to change
the same. In
which case, the second act of Congress must be ratified under this last
sentence of Section 2, which Commissioner Ople amended by way of
deletion which I
accepted on behalf of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to be clarified on the matter that requires a plebiscite
MR. NOLLEDO: The change of the local government structure would require a
plebiscite.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Committee Chairman please clarify this?
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I have a question.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in response to the question of the Chair, may I
reiterate the proposed amendment. This pertains to line 19 of Section 2,
page 1
of the Article. I propose to delete the sentence which says: No change in the
existing form of local government shall take effect until ratified by a

majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to make a very important
argument in favor of the Ople amendment because if we do not delete this,
then Congress
cannot even change the present form of government as now embodied in the
Local Government Code. There are many petitions that we have received
asking the
Congress to return to the old form of government with a mayor and council,
particularly to political units within Metro Manila. Mr. Marcos has changed
drastically the form of government of the local government units.
MR. FOZ: I think it is settled in some jurisprudence that the presidential form
of government and the parliamentary system are not applicable to local
government systems. As a matter of fact, in the existing local government
setup, there is a mixture as it is. The provincial governor sits in the
provincial board which is the legislative department of the provincial
government, and this example is extended to some other forms of local
government
where the mayor sits as chairman or presiding officer of the city or municipal
council. So, the question of whether this is parliamentary or presidential
does not apply, does not come into play at all. So, the form of government as
used in the provision involves the question of whether it is a mayor-council
type of government or a manager type of government as far as local
government is concerned. So the parliamentary and presidential systems are
not at all
involved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee has accepted the
amendment of Commissioner Ople. I think there is an objection from
Commissioner Davide, and so
we submit this to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall now submit this to a vote.
VOTING
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we vote on Section 1 and Section 2
as entire texts, as amended.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Committee Chairman read Section 1 with the
amendments so that we can vote separately.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 1. The TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE THE PROVINCES, CITIES,
MUNICIPALITIES AND
BARANGAYS. THERE SHALL BE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS IN MUSLIM
MINDANAO AND THE CORDILLERA AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED.
MR. MAAMBONG: Before we vote on Section 1, may I just ask the Chairman
to reiterate his answer to my query as regards the subprovinces which are
local
government units existing under our present laws but are not mentioned
here. I would like the Chairman to articulate before the Commission what is
his
thinking about the subprovinces which seem to be in limbo up to this present
time.
MR. NOLLEDO: I said before, Madam President, and reiterate now, that
subprovinces, because of their temporary status, are extensions of the
mother
provinces and, therefore, they can be considered in the redistricting system
for purposes of representation in the Congress.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, as far as Section 1 is concerned, the
Constitution does not acknowledge the existence of the subprovinces.
MR. NOLLEDO: As separate political units, because they are, to my mind,
extensions of the mother provinces.
MR. MAAMBONG: Would the Commissioner perhaps suggest that I formulate
another provision, probably to be given to the Committee on Amendments
and Transitory
Provisions or to the Committee on the Legislative?
MR. NOLLEDO: To what effect?
MR. MAAMBONG: The proposed provision shall cover the subprovinces.
MR. NOLLEDO: I have no objection.
MR. OPLE: May I support this proposal, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 1 as read, please raise
hand.)
The results show 29 votes in favor and none against; Section 1, as amended,
is approved.
May we ask the Chairman to read Section 2, as amended.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 2, as amended, now reads: THE CONGRESS SHALL
ENACT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WHICH SHALL PROVIDE FOR A MORE
RESPONSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, INSTITUTED THROUGH A SYSTEM OF
DECENTRALIZATION, WITH EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR RECALL, INITIATIVE
AND REFERENDUM, ALLOCATE AMONG
THE DIFFERENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS THEIR POWERS,
RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES, AND PROVIDE FOR THE
QUALIFICATIONS, ELECTION, APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL,
TERM, SALARIES, POWERS AND FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL
OFFICIALS, AND ALL OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE ORGANIZATION AND
OPERATION OF THE LOCAL UNITS.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 2 as read by the
Committee Chairman, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
hand.)
is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I am prepared to present my amendment
to Section 3. As a matter of fact, I have submitted or caused the distribution
of my
comments on my proposed amendment. However, I would like to call the
attention of the Chair that my proposed amendment will affect two things. It
will
settle probably, once and for all, the status of highly urbanized cities, and will
also affect the right of suffrage of the voters in highly urbanized
cities.
So, may I ask the indulgence of the Chair if I would rather reserve my right to
present this at some later date, because these issues are very vital and we
do not have a full complement of Commissioners right now. I would rather
that this be decided when there are more Members present, Madam
President. So, I
reserve my right to present my amendment to Section 3 later.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment to Section 3?
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Colayco be recognized to amend Section
3.
Without going over the reservation of Commissioner Maambong, I am going
to ask two clarificatory questions. Line 2 of Section 3 says the highly
urbanized
cities, as determined by reasonable standards. I would like to know if the
Committee has in mind what these reasonable standards would be, for the
guidance of the Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: They are provided in the Local Government Code. I think it is
Congress that shall determine the reasonable standards.
MR. COLAYCO: My second question is, is the word city on line 4 used as it is
understood on line 2 highly urbanized cities?
MR. NOLLEDO: The word city on line 4 refers to a city, whether highly
urbanized or not, as long as it is a component part of the province.
MR. COLAYCO: I would like to call the attention of the Gentleman to existing
practice. For instance, Pasay City is inside Rizal.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think Metro Manila is excluded, as I understand from
Commissioner Rama, who is the proponent of this provision.
MR. RAMA: Yes, Metro Manila is excluded from this provision.
MR. COLAYCO: But there is no distinction her in this definition.
MR. RAMA: Then I would suggest that Commissioner Colayco propose an

amendment to the effect that cities in Metro Manila are not included in this
provision.
MR. COLAYCO: I will make that amendment when Commissioner Maambong
is ready with his own in connection with Section 3.
MR. RAMA: May I explain the rationale for this second sentence in this
section. This is an antiwarlordism provision. In the past regime, the warlords
who
normally would live in some benighted places in the province were able to
disenfranchise the cities voters who had been voting for the provincial
officials ever since. And with that kind of scheme, they were able to control
the provinces and get themselves entrenched. As a matter of fact, this had
been a very big issue in many cities down South because of the
disenfranchisement of the voters who are normally more informed for they
live in the cities
and are normally less vulnerable to the maneuvers and manipulations and
intimidations of the warlords. I think it is a more democratic system to allow
the
city voters, most of whom come from the towns or provinces, to vote as they
have always been voting in the past. That is the reason for this second
sentence in Section 3.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, since there was a question by
Commissioner Colayco which was not completely answered, I would like to
put on record that as
of this moment under our Local Government Code, we have a provision in
Section 165 which classifies cities into two kinds. It says:
A city may either be component or highly urbanized. Highly urbanized cities,
as herein provided, shall be independent of the province.
The question of Commissioner Colayco is: What is a highly urbanized city?
Section 166 of the Local Government Code states highly urbanized cities are
the
cities with a minimum population of 150,000 as certified by the National
Census and Statistics Office, and with the latest annual income of at least
P30
million as certified by the Minister of Finance; and that cities which do not
meet the above requirements shall be considered component cities of the
province in which they are geographically located.
Section 167 of the Local Government Code will answer the question of
Commissioner Colayco as to how we elevate a component city into a highly
urbanized
city. Section 167 says: A component city may become a highly urbanized
city if it meets the criteria specified in the preceding section. That is
precisely the point which will be the subject matter later on of our
amendment, because as of this moment we have highly urbanized cities
whose inhabitants
are not allowed to vote logically for the provincial elective officials in the
same way that the inhabitants and the voters in the province are not allowed
to vote for the election of city officials in the highly urbanized cities. That will
be the subject matter later on of my proposed amendment to Section 3.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: So as a consequence, Commissioner Monsod wishes to be
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to ask a question, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: If I understand correctly, the reason for the sentence is to
prevent warlords in the province from dominating the countryside. Is it not
possible that there will be a warlord in the city also, so that the city will then
dominate the countryside?
MR. RAMA: Our experience, Madam President, is that the warlords normally
do not have their political bailiwicks in the cities because the cities are
enlightened voters. It is in the towns in the provinces where the warlords
thrive because they can terrorize and buy voters there. It is not so easy to
buy
voters in the cities. That has been our experience, so that this provision also
tries to correct an evil because there has been gerrymandering. This is
trying to do justice to those people who have suffered injustices under the
aegis of some warlords.
MR. MONSOD: My solution in that case where there is gerrymandering is to
prevent the gerrymandering, not to solve it by offsetting a wrong in the first
place.
I have another question, Madam President. In the case of the city residents
voting for the province, let us say that their votes make the difference. Would
the provincial governor have any power or any authority within the city?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, many of the inhabitants or dwellers in the city
come from the towns. Their families live there. As a matter of fact, they just
go to the city to find work. But for purposes of their livelihood they have to
transfer their domicile in the city, and it is more convenient for them to
stay in the city and vote in the same place. But the majority of those people
in the city come from the towns, and their families come from the towns. The
gerrymandering that I was referring to has already been committed and I
want to correct this. The warlords have already gerrymandered by
disenfranchising
the city voters.
MR. MONSOD: I find it very hard to conceptualize the principle that a group of
voters may determine the government of the province when there is really
no
jurisdiction over the province. To me, the parallel to this is in the 1984
Election Code, where transient workers were allowed to vote in cities of their
place of work. We saw many instances where the laborers of a construction
company, for example, had a very big vote in Pasay City. I was wondering
whether
there is really a principle involved here on who are the people who are going
to be governed by the officials who are being elected. I am only trying to
reconcile whether that principle is superior to the principle of trying to
constitutionalize the prevention of warlordism. We are trying to put a
negative
constitutional provision to solve the warlord system, but we may be opening
up another avenue of injustice where people are governed by those who
really
were not voted by them into office.
THE PRESIDENT: Amendments to this Section 3 have been reserved for
Monday or any other day when the Article on Local Governments is
scheduled. I suppose
additional manifestations on this can be postponed to that time when the
amendment of Commissioners Maambong and Colayco will be considered.
Can we proceed
now to Section 4?
My proposal is to delete the word sectoral on line 8, and to insert after
representation the phrase FROM THE PARTY LIST. And on line 9, after the
word
law, add the following: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH
IN SECTION OF ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION. The Article here
refers to the
Article on the Legislative/National Assembly. I understand that the idea of the
Committee is only to carry over to the local legislative bodies sectoral

representation under the party list system as mandated in Section 5 of the
proposed Article on the Legislative/National Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Committee ready to react to this?
MR. MONSOD: Just a point of information, Madam President. How large are
the legislative bodies at the provincial and municipal level?
MR. NOLLEDO: The legislative body is composed of eight members.
MR. MONSOD: The reason for my asking is I would like to raise the point of
whether proportional representation which is really the party list system
lends
itself to application in small bodies like those because I remember the
discussion on the Senate where we were talking about 24 Members of which
12 would
be elected at any one time, assuming 6 years and 3 years. But when we put
a slate of eight people to run for the municipal council, under a party list
system, we are sure that not all of those eight will be elected, unlike in a
system that we have installed in the Article on the Legislative/National
Assembly where there is a limit of about 50 seats and anybody who gets
more than 20 percent of the votes can have all the lineup elected. With this
we are
sure that not all of them will be elected because it is strictly proportional, and
I am not sure that the party list system lends itself well to a small
body of eight like this.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, that is the reason why we are rejecting the
amendment.
MS. AQUINO. I also object to the deletion of sectoral representation because
the pressing imperative of democratizing the political processes in the local
governments by way of sectoral representation is more than it would be in
the national government. We have gone through a lot of public hearings and
there
is an overwhelming clamor for sectoral representation in the local
government where the people believe that their felt needs are more
adequately responded
to by the local governments. Besides, I have serious doubts about the
feasibility of the application of the party system in the local governments,
Madam
President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just raise one point?
MR. MONSOD: I believe that we had a very lengthy discussion on the floor
regarding the concept of permanent seats. Here we are talking about an
eight-man
council and I do not know what is in the mind of the Committee but,
certainly, the members are probably thinking about two or three reserved
seats; about
the municipality where universal and equal suffrage is only applicable to five
seats out of the eight; and about a situation where there are permanent
sectoral seats and where some people who belong to favored sectors would
again have two votes, and the rest have only one.
So, I do not know whether we should provide here an exception to the
deliberations where the Commission has voted in principle on the question of
whether
reserved seats are really a democratic type of legislature, and we only have
here a council of eight people.
MR. NOLLEDO: Incidentally, Madam President, we used the words as may be
prescribed by law.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I address a few questions to the Chairman of the
Committee? May I know the sectors referred to in Section 4 which will have
representation in the local governments? In the Article on the
Legislative/National Assembly we mentioned sectors like youth, women,
indigenous cultural
communities urban poor, peasants and others, even women and other
sectors, as may be provided by law. Are we carrying over those sectors in
this Article on
Local Governments?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we did not discuss those sectors in the
Committee. Commissioner Bennagen would like to answer the question of
the Gentleman.
MR. BENNAGEN: Earlier, during the deliberations, I answered that because of
the wide variations of sectors in the regions, we cannot specify precisely
what
sectors will be represented in all of the local districts. I would imagine there
will be areas with at least two sectors peasants, maybe youth, and even
women and in other areas, there will be a lot more.
MR. SARMIENTO: I fully endorse Section 4 on sectoral representation. This
will bolster the claims or the statements of Commissioner Davide about
peoples
power. As a matter of fact, this will supplement the mechanisms of recall,
initiative and referendum.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I understand from Commissioner Davide
that he is withdrawing his amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because of the problem on sectoral representation and
because of the enlightenment of Commissioner Aquino.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, in that case, I would like to make an
amendment. I believe that this section is difficult to operationalize and that it
is
against the system of universal and equal suffrage. I would like to propose
that Section 4 be deleted.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee does not accept the
amendment and would prefer that the question be submitted to the floor.
MR. COLAYCO: May I give my reaction. I support the stand of Commissioner
Monsod, because the legislative bodies in the local level will deal only with
local problems. I do not see how the sectoral area or sectoral representatives
can be of any special help in protecting the rights of the parties
represented by them. For that reason, therefore, I do not see any reason nor
justification for Section 4.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I object to the motion of Commissioner
Monsod and proceed precisely from the argument of Commissioner Colayco.
Regional and
other local governments have specific idiosyncrasies that are addressed
more decisively by their particular legislative assemblies. These would
require
specific attention to the particular configuration of their problem. When we
respect the idiosyncrasies of the region, there is likewise a necessity to
consider that in certain regions, there are some critical problems that can be
best addressed by a definitive configuration in their legislative assembly.
For example, if we speak of the legislative assembly in Central Luzon where
the critical mass belongs to the peasant sectors, there is need therefor for
the peasant sector to be represented in the legislative assembly, as a
definitive and significant sector. In other words, I would use the same
argument to
support the retention of this section.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I object as well to the proposed amendment
that would delete sectoral representation in local legislative bodies for the
simple
reason that this is already an earned right. May I volunteer the information
that right now in the municipal councils or sangguniang bayan all over the
country, the farmers and the workers and also the youth are already
represented. There are usually eight (8) seats in the municipal council or
sangguniang
bayan, and in the sangguniang panlungsod. In addition to that, these are
elected within their political subdivision and each council usually has a
member
representing the youth sector. Yes, all the barangay associations in the town
are represented through the Chairman of the Association of Barangay
Captains,
and the youth are represented. Optionally, the workers of the trade unions
may also be represented in the case of the more economically advanced
municipalities where there are industries and, therefore, trade unions.
Therefore, if we now delete sectoral representation in local bodies, then this
is a
step backwards from what these mass organizations already enjoyed under
the old Constitution.
I would have no objection to a review of the nature of the sectoral
representation that will be considered by Congress. I would have no objection
to
guiding Congress on what this Commission would like to denominate as its
own preferences for sectoral seats, but I appeal to the Committee to
preserve the
principle of sectoral representation in local bodies because it is already a
working principle which has been proven by experience to be useful and to
be
desirable for a community.
Thank you.
MR. COLAYCO: One last reaction, Madam President.
MR. COLAYCO: We are speaking here of reserved seats, in other words, to
guarantee that these sectoral areas shall be insured of their representation.
But
in the local bodies, these sectoral areas or persons can fight it out on an
equal basis. Everybody knows everybody in a municipality. The idea of
sectoral
representation was important in the higher provincial and national levels
because they are at a big disadvantage. Here, they do not need this
protection.
Secondly, what are the issues covered by the legislation in local matters?
Licenses, probably, minor violations, that is all. The personal rights as a
social member of a unit are not involved in local legislation. Madam
President, I do not think there is need, really, for providing special sectoral
representation in the municipal level at least.
MR. OPLE: I just wanted to point out that the range of lawmaking duties at
the municipal level is much wider than what Commissioner Colayco had
suggested.
There are social and economic development programs covered by
appropriate legislation at the municipal level, and it is in this respect that
sectoral
representation becomes very important. There are problems of fishermen
and of farmers in a locality. There are the problems of market vendors and of
peace
and order. If the level of peace in a remote barangay is substandard, then
they cannot go out to plant; they cannot harvest when the rice ripens. So,
there
is a whole range of legislative services now being provided by the
sangguniang bayan, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we listen to Commissioner Bengzon.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I have a question to ask the Committee,

but before that, with the little experience I have gone through and have had
in
dealing with local governments, I fully agree with the comments of
Commissioner Ople in his explanation and I share those views. In Section 4,
when we say
legislative bodies of local governments, I assume that the term refers to
the governor, the vice-governor, the members of the provincial board, the
mayor, the vice-mayor and the members of the municipal council. Is that
correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I briefly say something on sectoral representation. I
have been to a number of places and I observed that many of those in the
bodies,
legislative bodies, belong to the middle and upper classes of our society. In
the province where I come from, the council is occupied by those who belong
to the middle class or upper class. I, therefore, support that the marginal
sectors be represented in the bodies so that their needs and grievances will
have a chance to be heard.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the Monsod amendment to delete the entire
Section 4 is ready for a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment before the body is that of
Commissioner Monsods, to delete the entire Section 4.
As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor, 19 against; the amendment is lost.

After Section 4, I propose to insert a new section to be denominated later as
Section 5. It provides as follows: THE TERM OF OFFICE OF ELECTIVE LOCAL
OFFICIALS, EXCEPT BARANGAY OFFICIALS, WHICH SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
LAW, SHALL BE THREE YEARS AND NO SUCH OFFICIAL SHALL SERVE FOR
MORE THAN THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS. VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE FOR ANY
LENGTH OF TIME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN THE
CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE
FOR THE FULL TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED. This is in accordance
with the mandate of the Commission when we voted on the terms of officials
up to local
officials, excluding the term of barangay officials which was a very specific
exception.
MR. NOLLEDO: One clarificatory question, Madam President. What will be the
term of the office of barangay officials as provided for?
MR. DAVIDE: As may be determined by law.
MR. NOLLEDO: As provided for in the Local Government Code.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: We accept the amendment. The Committee accepts the
amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Will the proponent accept an amendment to the extent that
the second sentence, which he just read, should be the first sentence, and
the
present first sentence should be the second sentence because it would be an
improper sequence for the executive to be on the first sentence and the
legislative on the second sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: May we have the wording under the proposal?
MR. MAAMBONG: It has the same wording as Commissioner Davide has

proposed. We only transpose the amendment, which he just read, as the first
sentence of
Section 4 and the present formulation of Section 4 as the second sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: I think that will be the sequence. I do not know if the Committee
also has the same perception.
MR. NOLLEDO: We have no objection, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have copies of this new section?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President, it is included in the omnibus
amendments introduced by this Representation. That is (Roman numeral) VI,
page 2, of the
omnibus amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the reaction of the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment, as amended,
Madam President.
MR. OPLE: May we ask the Committee to read the proposed amendment now.
MR. NOLLEDO: May we ask Commissioner Davide to read the new section.
MR. DAVIDE: THE TERM OF OFFICE OF ELECTIVE LOCAL OFFICIALS, EXCEPT
BARANGAY OFFICIALS, WHICH SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LAW, SHALL BE
THREE YEARS AND NO SUCH
OFFICIAL SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN
INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE FOR THE FULL TERM FOR
WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment? Is there any objection to this
proposed new section as submitted by Commissioner Davide and accepted
by the
Committee?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, does this prohibition to serve for more than
three consecutive terms apply to barangay officials?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the voting that we had on the terms of office
did not include the barangay officials because it was then the stand of the
Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments that the term of barangay
officials must be determined by law. So it is now for the law to determine
whether
the restriction on the number of reelections will be included in the Local
Government Code.
MR. RODRIGO: So that is up to Congress to decide.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: I just wanted that clear in the record.
MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that it was decided by the proponent and by
the Committee that this should be a new section, I will vary my proposed
amendment a
little bit to the effect that this present formulation should now become
Section 4 and the present Section 4 should be Section 5 so that we can have
the
proper sequence of the executive and the legislative, if that is acceptable to
the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Chairman of the Committee say?
MR. NOLLEDO: I suggest, Madam President, that adjustments be made later
on when Commissioner Maambong shall have presented his amendment.
That is with
respect only to the numbering.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I think the best way is for us to renumber
as soon as the body approves the Maambong amendment, because there
may be
forthcoming amendments later on.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, as long as the sequence that I presented will be
followed.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I just wanted to call the attention of the
Committee, if this is welcome, to a prior decision taken by the Commission to
relocate, to allocate a new section to the amendment concerning
metropolitan areas that was approved this morning. May I leave it to the
Committee to find
the correct and most appropriate place in these series of sections for that.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: We will do that.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Laurel be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Laurel is recognized. Is this on the Davide
amendment so we can vote on it? Is this a new matter?
MR. RAMA: This is a new matter, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then let us vote first on the Davide amendment.
Is there any objection to this new section proposed by Commissioner Davide
which has been read to the body? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
proposed
section is approved.
(Protecting the Dignity and Integrity of the Commission)
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we consider Proposed Resolution
No. 541.
motion is approved.
Commissioner Laurel is recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Laurel is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER LAUREL

MR. LAUREL: Madam President, I would like to read before this body a
resolution which some of our colleagues have signed. It is a resolution
expressing the
imperative of protecting the dignity and the integrity of the Commission
against undue interference by lobbyists within the session hall. ELC
As Madam President will recall, yesterday, there was an incident which
occurred even in the presence of not only the ordinary Members of this
Chamber, like
your humble servant, but also in the presence of the officers, including the
Presiding Officer of this Chamber. That was a very unfortunate incident
because everyone will recall that at that time, the session was simply
suspended, the body had not adjourned. In other words, what took place was
part of
the proceedings of this Chamber and, therefore, if anyone wants to commit a
disorderly behavior in this Chamber only the Members can violate the Rules
and
face the risk of investigation by his peers in the Committee on Privileges.
And, therefore, it was not proper for any outsider or any lobbyists, for that
matter, to come over and insult a Member of this Chamber, and we know
who he is. It was a distinguished Member who was called names, and that
was improper.
As a matter of fact, there is no one who is not a Member of this Chamber
who can pretend to have not only the ability but the right to commit
disorderly
behavior.
If any outsider should do that, he should have been silenced then and there,
and he should have been ordered out of the floor. Kahit pa igapos para
palayasin, hindi dapat ipinahintulot na lumalabas tayong hinihiyang lahat
dito. Ang bagay na ito ay hindi dapat mangyari, at kung nangyari man noong
araw
ay ipagpatawad na natin na may nangyaring ganoon; ang nais ko lamang
sana ay huwag nang maulit pa ito.
There are lots of controversial matters that will be discussed, not only now or
tomorrow, but until the day we adjourn; therefore, let us not allow this to
happen again. Madam President and my dear colleagues, may I read
Proposed Resolution No. 541:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE IMPERATIVE OF PROTECTING THE DIGNITY
AND INTEGRITY OF THE COMMISSION AGAINST UNDUE INTERFERENCE BY
LOBBYISTS WITHIN THE SESSION

HALL
WHEREAS, during the suspension of the plenary session of the Commission
in the morning of Friday, 15 August 1986, and while the Commissioners
discussed
their proposed amendments to the proposed Article on National Economy
and Patrimony with the members of the Committee on National Economy
and Patrimony,
lobbyists rushed into the session hall and approached Commissioners and
committee members with the intention of presenting their own amendments;
one of the
lobbyists, who was insistent on having his own or his groups proposals
incorporated into Section 1 of the proposed Article publicly and openly
insulted,
and his brother challenged, Commissioner Christian Monsod; unfortunately,
however, one newspaper erroneously made it appear that it was
Commissioner Monsod
who provoked the altercation;
WHEREAS, the Commission had taken all steps to hear the views of all
sectors; nationwide public hearings were conducted; the different
committees conducted
their own hearings; and the Commission and its members have received, and
continue to receive, proposals and recommendations from individuals,
groups and
associations; with utmost patience the Commissioners listened to all views;
WHEREAS, the Commission, as a constituent assembly, and its members are
entitled to respect; the session hall of the Commission is not any ordinary
place
for any person or group of persons to freely use to disrupt or interfere with
the delicate work of the Commission;
WHEREAS, the incident above-described constituted an assault on the dignity
of the Commission; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Commission, to direct the Sergeantat-Arms to always maintain order and security within the session hall, or in
any manner disrupting the Commissioners thereat.
Resolved, further, to condemn as undue and unwarranted interference of the
proceedings of the Commission the action of the lobbyists involved in the
incident in question.
Kahit na sinabi ng peryodikong ang pinanggalingan ay si Mr. Monsod, hindi

naman iyon totoo. Kung totoo man iyon, papaano naging Member of this
body iyong
pumasok na taga-labas upang mag-participate during the suspension of the
session. Kahit ang session ay suspended lamang, ang ginagawa natin dito ay
part of
the proceedings. Suspendido ang session upang alamin kung ano ba ang
diperensiya entre nosotros na puwede namang ayusin.
Ngunit hindi maaaring pumasok dito sa session hall upang magyabang ang
sinumang lalaki. Kung kaibigan ko man at kaibigan ko namang talaga
iyong mga
dumating dito at hinahangad na tayoy sundaluhin, hindi iyon ang pinaguusapan. Dapat namang bigyan ng halaga ang ating trabaho rito sapagkat
ito naman
ay ginagawa natin para sa kanila na mga kababayan natin.
Katulad noong araw na ako ay Speaker pa sa Camara de Representantes,
mayroong mga teenagers na gustong magtalumpati roon sa session hall.
Ang sabi ko sa
kanila, Hindi naman kayo qualified even to run for public office. Maghintay
kayo. Darating ang panahon ninyo that you would be qualified to run. At
kung
kayo ay manalo, saka lamang kayo makakadiskurso rito. Ni hindi kayo
maaaring magkandidato, pagkatapos ay gusto ninyong makapanayam kami
rito. Ano ang
saysay ng pagpupulong namin dito kung ganyan ang mangyayari?
Mabuti pa ay pumunta na lamang sila sa Pangulo natin, kay Ginang Aquino,
at doon sila magpanombra at kung makursunadahan sila, makakapagbusisi
na sila
rito. Ngunit hindi sila maaaring magyabang dito dahil hindi naman sila kaanib
dito. At huwag naman nilang hiyain ang mga Commissioners sapagkat ang
hinihiya nila ay hindi naman tayo lamang kundi pati ang bayan at pati na ang
Pangulo na nagpadala sa atin dito. Kayat hindi na dapat maulit iyan.
Nangyari
na at ayaw ko ng ganoong marami pa sana tayong pag-uusapan dito ay
basta pupuntahan tayo at ang gusto nilang mangyari ay ang kanila. At pag
hindi tayo
sumang-ayon ay mabubusisi tayo rito at sasabihin pa ang kanilang palagay
sa atin.
Tayo ay nakikinig at kung gusto nilang makinig, humarap sila sa mga
committee meetings. Mayroon naman tayong mga pinagpupulungan; pati sa
probinsiya ay
nasuot tayo upang madinig kung ano ang kagustuhan ng mga kababayan
natin. Ngunit hindi tamang sila ay magdidiskurso o manggugulo rito. Alam

naman natin
kung ano ang gusto ng mga tao. Tayo naman ay nakikinig; bagamat alam na
natin ay pinakikinggan pa natin ang mga tao because we have to disagree
from time
to time. Ano ba naman kung mapakinggan natin ang gusto ng tao?
Ngunit kasalukuyang mayroong session dito sa Con-Com, kaya bakit naman
pakikialaman ang ating ginagawa gayong hindi naman sila kaanib?
Ang mahalaga ay hindi lamang pagbibigay-galang sa atin kundi pagbibigaygalang sa nagpadala sa atin dito. At ang nagpadala sa atin dito ay ang ating
Pangulong kinikilala ng maraming kababayan natin. Mayroon pa riyang ang
gusto ay maging Pangulo. Mayroon pang naging Pangulong malapit din sa
akin at
tatlumput pitong oras na naging Pangulo; mayroon ding nagsasabing
tatlumput anim na araw daw.
Tayoy ipinadala rito upang magtrabaho, pagkatapos ay hahadlangan pa tayo
ng ating mga kababayan na mga nagdudunung-dunungan. Hindi tayo ang
kawawa; ang
kawawa ay ang bayan na naghihintay sa atin na tayo ay makatapos dito sa
ating katungkulan.
Kung may nagkamali ay ipakiusap lang nating huwag nang uulitin iyon. Ito
naman ay hindi patama lamang sa kung sinuman, at kilala ninyong lahat
kung sino
iyong nasasangkot sa paggawa noong hindi natin nagugustuhan. Ninanais
lang nating ipaalam sa kapwa rin nating Pilipino na tayo ay magpupulongpulong
tungkol sa mga ibat ibang bagay at marami pa tayong pagpupulungang mga
bagay na hindi tayo maaaring magkasundo-sundo o magkasama-sama.
Kung tuwing tayo ay may pag-uusapan at hindi magkakasama-sama ang
lahat ng delegado rito at kung paparito lang ang mga taga-labas para
manggulo ay huwag na
silang pumarito. Aming pinakikiusapan at tinatawagang-pansin ang mga
nanunungkulan dito, lalo na ang ating Sergeant-at-Arms. I repeat, the session
was only
suspended. What we were doing was part of the proceedings of this Chamber
at that time.
Ipinakikiusap ko po, sa ngalan ng mga kasamahan ko, na wala naman tayong
kasali dito na pinararatangan natin. Sapagkat dito sa session hall, only the
Members of this body can commit disorderly conduct. At kapag naman
nangyari iyan, hindi na baleng tayo ay ikulong o palayasin dito. Kung
sinuman dito ang

kaanib ay siya lamang ang may karapatang mag-alsa rito at gumawa ng
mali, tulad noong ginawa ng iba. Ngunit iyong mga hindi taga-ritoy . . .
ipagpatawad
naman nila.
We pretend to be in a position to prepare the draft of a Constitution which
will later on be submitted to the people.
Nakapirma naman dito sa resolusyon ang mga pangalan ng mga authors
ngunit hindi ko na babasahin sapagkat sa aking palagay wala namang kaanib
dito sa
Con-Com na hindi sasang-ayon dito sa resolusyong ito. Kaya sa halip na
basahin ko ang mga pangalan nila ay ipalalagay ko na lamang na lahat ng
naririto
ngayon, pati wala ritong mga Members ng Con-Com, ay sang-ayon dito sa
resolusyong ito. Kayat, Madam President, aking hinihingi ang unanimous
approval of
this resolution.
Salamat po.
MR. FOZ: I have no objection, Madam President, but I just would like to make
certain statements in connection with the resolution. I think that at all
times, we should not give any impression that we are not open to any
suggestions or views from the public or from the people. We should, as a
matter of
fact, welcome all views, all shades of views. As a matter of fact, we have just
gone through a series of public consultations precisely to hear the views
of the people from as many representatives, from as many sectors as
possible, in as many places as possible. And having heard them, we are not,
of course,
bound by their views, but we have to consider them in making decisions as
to the specific provisions of our new Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz, I think everybody is aware that we have
welcomed organizations, individuals whom we have entertained at the South
Wing
lobby, even listened to their programs. We never intended or we have never
had up to now any occasion to deny any one from expressing his views, but
as the
resolution calls for, this must be made outside of the session hall, and not
while the Members of the Commission are deliberating over the resolutions
that
are before the body.
MR. FOZ: That is right, Madam President, but I just want to make the
statement that we should not give any impression, that we do not want to
listen to
anybody, be he a public official or a private citizen. I am referring particularly
to the impression created by another incident in the South Conference
Room where a public official was embarrassed because one of us practically
stopped him from delivering his statement in connection with another issue.
So, I am appealing to our Members not to make any step or to adopt any
measure that would give the impression that we do not welcome any view
from the
public at all. That is all my concern, but I support the proposed resolution of
Commissioner Laurel.
MR. LAUREL: Madam President, I read that paragraph of the resolution which
refers to the steps taken by this body to receive the comments and the
opinions
expressed by other people. I am not saying that my dear colleague is going
to vote against this resolution. If there is any one of those who came over
and
said things on the floor at a time when we were in session, and who wants to
participate here, I am even willing to resign, and give way to him provided
the President is willing to appoint him. At kung kailangan pa, I know there will
be Members of this Chamber who are willing to give up their positions.
But what I want is to preserve the dignity and the integrity of this Chamber. I
am not doing this for myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz has expressed his full support for the
resolution.
MR. LAUREL: Maganda ho naman. Magbotohan na lang tayo. At akoy hindi
naman umaasang mayroon kaanib dito na hindi sasang-ayon sa resolusyong
ito. Hindi
naman para sa akin sapagkat ito ay para sa ating bayan.
May we just ask one clarification of the distinguished Commissioner Laurel. I
did not get very well the last condemnatory portion of the resolution. I
fully support the Commissioner in his undertaking and I think it is a noble

undertaking to uphold the integrity of this Commission. I am only a little wary
about the condemnatory portion. May I have the pleasure of the
Commissioners reading it again for the benefit of the other Members?
MR. LAUREL: The last paragraph of the resolution says:
Resolved, further, to condemn as undue and unwarranted interference of the
proceedings of the Commission the action of the lobbyists involved in the
incident in question.
(Protecting the Dignity and Integrity of the Commission)
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we approve Proposed Resolution
No. 541.
motion is approved.
Proposed Resolution No. 541 is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for adjournment until Monday at ninethirty in the morning.
morning.
It was 4:11 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 59
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
PRAYER
MR. DAVIDE: Almighty and eternal God, through Your Son Jesus Christ, You
said:
Ask, and it shall be given you;
Seek and you shall find it;
Knock, and it shall be opened to you.
For everyone who asks, receives;
And he who seeks, finds;
And to him who knocks, it shall be opened.
During the past seventy-seven days of our sacred work to write the
fundamental law, we had asked for Your guidance; sought Your wisdom;
knocked at Your
heart for love not only here but everywhere, during waking hours or sleeping
moments, in the quiet of aloneness or in the midst of noise.
You never failed us. Your patience was endless.
As the end of our work draws near and the issues become more complex and
complicated, debates more intense and evenwinded, we need You more.
We need You for strength to walk the last mile; for courage to resist
pressures and the intimidation of the crowd; for humility to accept defeat of
our pet
proposals; for patience to listen to the words of others; for peace of mind and
soul.
Above all, we need Your wisdom; so that the Constitution we shall prepare
will come from You and no one else for the Filipinos of all generations to
love, cherish and share.
Be with us then always. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: May I call the attention of our Commissioners and
everybody in this hall that we are starting today the celebration of Peace and
Freedom
Week under the auspices of the Ninoy Aquino Movement and SERVE. And so,
let us all join in expressing the hope that peace and freedom will always
reign in
our country, in our communities, in our families and homes, and also here in
this august assembly.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present *
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Absent
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present *
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present

the Journal of last Saturdays session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of last
Saturdays session.
motion is approved.
of Business.
motion is approved.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Ms. Pearl Gunzon and sixteen (16) others, all from U.P. Diliman,
Quezon City, proposing the following: (1) that elective local officials will
have a six-year term; (2) that they be allowed to seek reelection or to run for
other elective positions only after a six-year term has been served by a
successor; and (3) that first-degree relatives of elective officials be
disqualified from running for elective positions after the expiration of their
term.
Communication from the Mindanao Movement, signed by its Chairman,
Epimaco M. Densing, Jr., urging inclusion in the Constitution of the following
proposals:
(a) that election to public office should not involve any expense whatsoever
on the part of the candidates, political parties, voters and others, except on
the part of the government, and (b) that in the administration of justice,
litigants should not incur any expense in the procurement and/or availment
of
anything which may affect a just and fair decision.
Letter from Mr. Edmundo H. Fulleros of Buhang, Bulusan, Sorsogon, urging
the dismantling of the two U.S. military bases come 1991, and thereafter, no
foreign military bases be allowed in our country.
Principles.
Position paper of the Association of Baptist Churches in Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao, Inc. 32 Road 2, Project 6, Quezon City, signed by its Chairman,
Rev.
Edwin T. Ormeo, supporting the retention of the provisions upholding the
principle of the separation of Church and State in the new Constitution of the
Philippines.
Letter from the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU)

signed by its President, Ms. Josephine C. Reyes, submitting proposed
amendments
on the resolution incorporating in the Constitution an Article on Education,
Science, Technology, Sports, Arts and Culture, embodied in Committee
Report
No. 29.
Letter from Mr. Benigno Jaleroso of Camiling, Tarlac, expressing concern over
the proposed creation of the Cordillera and Muslim Mindanao as autonomous
regions, saying that this might lead to the creation of other autonomous
regions like the Ilocos region, Bicol region, the Southern Tagalog provinces,
and
others.
Letter from Mr. Faustino Ruivivar, Jr. of Every Home Crusade Philippines, Inc.,
P.O. Box 50, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, recommending that the provision of
the 1973 Constitution on the separation of the Church and State be
incorporated in the new Constitution; that the teaching of religion in the
public
schools should be optional and without cost to the government; and to allow
the U.S. military bases to remain after 1991.
Communication with seven hundred seventy-seven signatories with their
respective addresses, seeking to include in the Constitution a provision
obliging the
State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
Principles.

Continuation
MR. RAMA: Up for consideration this morning would be the resolution to
incorporate in the new Constitution an Article on National Economy and
Patrimony,
and also later in the morning we propose that we take up the resolution on
the Article on Local Governments.
Madam President, in view of the motion for the reconsideration of Section 1
of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, I move that we take up for
consideration the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
motion is approved.
The body will proceed to continue the discussion on the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony. The Chair requests the honorable Chairman
Bernardo
Villegas, Vice-Chairman Jaime Tadeo and the members of the Committee to
please occupy the front table: Commissioners Gascon, Bennagen, Romulo,
Monsod,
Sarmiento, Bengzon, Jr., Maambong, Suarez, Uka, Bacani, Natividad, Foz and
Villacorta.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, under our Rules, a motion for
reconsideration has to be voted upon before the proponents can suggest
amendments. May I,
therefore, propose, in fairness to the proponents, that they be given a
chance to explain the basis for which they are seeking a motion for
reconsideration
of Section 1 so that when the Commissioners vote, it will be meaningful. I
believe it is necessary that the proponents do so because we have discussed
in
detail and at great length all the major concepts involved in Section 1;
namely the concept of a mixed economy with the private sector

predominating, the
concept of industrialization, the concept of protection against unfair foreign
competition and, finally, the concept of a broad-based ownership. These
have
been discussed in the Committee, on the floor, and in caucus. Inasmuch as
these have taken place, the proponents for a motion for reconsideration, in a
manner of speaking, have the burden of proof to show that their request for
reconsideration is meritorious. That is why I believe that in fairness to them,
we should allow them some latitude in explaining their position on why they
are requesting a motion for reconsideration as well as for permission to
amend
Section 2.
MR. SARMIENTO: I understand there are three or four Commissioners
intending to propose amendments or to say something on Section 1. I move
that they be
allowed to finish their comments and explanations first before the
interpellations for order and facility.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is granted.
Who will be our first speaker today?
MR. RAMA: I call on Commissioner Sarmiento to be the first speaker on the
motion for reconsideration.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, members of the Committee and my
fellow Commissioners, I rise this morning to express my reservations and
apprehensions with
respect to Section 1.
With due respect to my Committee, to the members of the Committee and to
the Members of this august body, allow me to share with everybody the
reasons for
my reservations and apprehensions. The fundamental objection to this
section is that it constitutionalizes the development philosophy prescribed by

the
IMF-World Bank group. This means that the Constitution will stand committed
to a development philosophy characterized by the following components:
1) minimal protection for domestic industries with an economy liberally
opened to import competition; and
2) an industrialization program characterized by an emphasis on industries
geared to foreign markets and based on exploitation of the nations
agricultural
resources and cheap and ample labor supply.
In essence, the new Constitution would incorporate the notorious laborintensive, export-oriented development strategy which the IMF-World Bank
group
imposed on the Marcos government, and which has been adopted by the
Aquino government in the guise of the economic recovery program. Far from
accomplishing
a self-reliant and independent national economy, which the section proposes
in its opening sentence, the mandate and directive embodied therein will
operate to perpetuate an import-dependent type of industrialization and
industrialization based on exploitation of our agricultural resources and labor
supply and which is geared to the agricultural markets.
Furthermore, Madam President, the section by necessary implication,
commits the State to a policy of protection only in those cases where foreign
competition is proved unfair, obviously rejecting the motion that the
domestic market should be preserved and secured for domestic industries as
a matter
of principle irrespective of whether or not import competition is fair or unfair.
Operatively, this means a policy of minimal protection for domestic
industries. This development philosophy has not only been proven a failure in
the Philippines but also elsewhere. The Economic and Social Commission for
Asia of the United Nations (ESCA) has been reported to have made a survey
which disclosed that the labor-intensive, export-oriented development
strategy
has been proven a failure in virtually every developing country where it has
been tried. As a matter of experience, we know that such a strategy has
been a
failure in the Philippines. This statement challenges the Committee on the
National Economy and Patrimony to deny that what has been intended by
this
section is to incorporate the failed labor-intensive, export-oriented approach
to development into no less than our new Constitution.
Our assessment of the subject session must be undertaken from the

perspective that a policy of intense protection for domestic industries not
only through
tariffs but also and more emphatically through direct and outright control of
our imports is not only necessary but indispensable to the development of an
independent and self-reliant economy. Such a rigorous protectionism
continues to be practiced even by highly developed states, the most
notorious of which
is Japan. Under such a policy, protection to domestic industries is extended
regardless of whether or not import competition is fair or unfair.
Madam President, my thoughts and reflections this morning are best stated
by our esteemed colleague, Commissioner Jose B. Laurel, in his sponsorship
speech
of the Magna Carta of Social Justice and Economic Freedom in 1969,
otherwise known as House Joint Resolution No. 2. He said in his sponsorship
speech:
Many of our social problems stem from an archaic economic structure that is
unable to meet the employment requirements of 37 million people, growing
at a
rate of almost 3.5 percent a year. It is an economic structure marked by the
conspicuous absence of significant manufacturing capabilities and
dependent
mainly on agricultural pursuits as the largest source of the countrys income
and employment opportunities. Only by industrializing the economy through
the
establishment of basic industries, particularly those that will utilize
indigenous raw materials, can we hope to resolve the perennial problem of
mass
unemployment and marginal incomes that haunt the lives of our people.
Speaking of protectionism, he remarked:
If we are to induce Filipino capitalists to invest in desirable industries, we
must assure their products of an effective and controlling share of the
domestic market. All other considerations are secondary. And we can assure
our entrepreneurs control over the domestic market for their products only if
they are effectively protected against foreign imports. This is the primary
purpose of tariffs and of import and foreign exchange restrictions.
I would like to close by quoting the words of a man whom we honored a few
days ago. I am referring to former Senator Lorenzo Taada, who said:
It is only economic nationalism, sustained by solid substance in the form of
control by our own entrepreneurs of the basic industries and facilities all
over our broad land, which will ensure the achievement of a lasting and
effectual solution to the problems of mass poverty, high cost of living and
increasing unemployment. It is the only philosophy of economic development
which will insure for us and perhaps, for our region, the permanence of
individual freedom and parliamentary institutions.
Thank you, Madam President, and I thank the Chairman and the members of
the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Tadeo wishes to be recognized, Madam President.
MR. TADEO: Kaisa po ako sa sinabi ni Commissioner Rene Sarmiento. Gusto
ko lang basahin sa inyo ang sinabi ni Alexander Padilla doon sa promotion of
Church
Peoples Response, Philippine Society in Perspective, a National Situationer,
tungkol sa economic protectionism. He says on page 2, paragraphs 2, 3 and
4
thereof:
In 1909, the United States forced the Philippines into an economic relation
called the free trade. Essentially, this meant that our government will be
prohibited from imposing any tariff, and other restrictions on American goods
exported to the Philippines. Free of tariff and duties and without limit,
cheap manufactured goods flooded the Philippines. More than any single
factor, this law which forced our agricultural economy to trade freely with a
highly
industrialized America entrenched and solidified the colonial pattern of our
economy. Our country became an exporter of raw materials and a consumer
of
finished products. This inhibited our manufacturing and industrial sectors
from expanding since it was highly prohibited to compete with imported,
cheaper
and better quality manufacturers. This free trade policy, to this date, is still
being practiced through its modern and various guises such as the
decontrol program of 1962, the floating rate of 1970, and through most of
the entire period of martial law, the export-oriented, labor-intensive
development strategy introduced in 1972 at the behest of the International
Monetary Fund-World Bank financial institution.
It is significant to note that over 200 years ago, when the United States had
just fought and won their independence from England, this very theory of
free trade espoused by Adam Smith was itself repudiated by the newly
born democracy through US Finance Minister Alexander Hamilton. The simple

reason
being that a country to be strong economically must be capable of producing
its own means of production and industries. With free trade, a developing
and
agricultural country (like the United States then) would be flooded by cheap
imported manufactures and thus hinder her from developing her own
industries.
Unless such a country begins to impose tariffs and quota limitations on
imports, encourage domestic industries through subsidies, she would forever
remain
an agricultural country dependent on her industrial partner(s) for essential
imported materials. By practising protectionism (then known as
mercantilism),
the United States became not only industrialized but even the most powerful
country in the entire world, fast outpacing its colonial mother country, Great
Britain. To this day, the United States practices protectionist policies by
imposing tariffs, quota limitations and other measures to prevent the influx
of
cheap imported products; but ironic as it may seem, through her controlled
international financial institution(s), she imposes the policy of an open
economy on developing and highly agricultural countries and thus
perpetuating countries like the Philippines a perennial market for
manufactured goods and
a cheap source of agricultural products, foodstuffs and raw materials. The
United States would grant us loans provided that we keep our economy open
to
imports and foreign investments, and not restrict the remittance of profit and
outflow of capital. In other words, free enterprise was practiced on a
global level with developing countries simply treated as markets. In essence,
this established a neocolonial relationship and a Third World country that
stagnated in the semifeudal backward, agricultural economy.
Ninanais po namin sa Section 1 ng Article on National Economy and
Patrimony ang self-reliant and independent economy under the effective
control of
Filipinos kaya nagkaroon kami ng motion for reconsideration. Gusto naming
ang Constitution na gagawin natin ay mag-uutos mismo ng tariff and
nontariff
protection sa domestic industry.
recognized.

MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, we appreciate the decision of the Chair
to reopen the discussions on the basic premises and philosophy of the Article
on
National Economy and Patrimony which is the basic foundation of the new
social order that our Commission is trying to introduce. I am also thankful
that
our fellow Commissioners are willing to listen to new arguments which were
generated by the newly amended section, meaning the first section of this
Article.
Madam President, although there were some incidents in the past week that
clouded the position paper that was presented by the Coalition for
Constitutional
Provision on Industrialization, Economic Protectionism and Filipinization of
the Economy, I submit that we cannot ignore this position paper because it
was
given by a broad-based coalition in which different sectors were represented
labor, farmers, cause-oriented groups, youth organizations, business
organizations, industry associations, the private business sector, and the
local governments. No less than Justice J.B.L. Reyes, Raul Concepcion, Ramon
Tuazon, Felix Maramba, Aurelio Periquet, Honorable Bren Guiao, Honorable
Jejomar Binay, and several other known personalities were signatories to this
position paper. Of great significance is the Philippine Chamber of Commerce
and Industrys participation in this position paper. I believe that since we
are a deliberative body committed to hearing the opinions and
recommendations of all sides, I think the paper should be heard. It says that
the signatories
have a particular reason for making their appeal. There are powerful forces
that have vested and historical interests in seeing our country preserved as a
nonindustrial economy. As long as industrialization and economic
protectionism are not elevated to the status of constitutional mandates,
these forces will
continue to succeed, as they have long succeeded, in suppressing our
industrialization.
The position paper further states, Madam President, that the central question
is whether we wish to remain a nation of importers, compradors, and
consumers, or do we wish to transform ourselves into a nation of producers?
The truth is that we have no choice, if we are to survive with dignity, but to
transform into the latter. But we cannot do so unless we industrialize.
I would just like to highlight the fact that this is the demand of local business
organizations and our own businessmen who are beseeching the
Constitutional Commission to give them the necessary protection. And we
know from history, Madam President, that the more protectionist a country
is, the
better its capacity to engage in international trade, the reason being that
protectionism generates the necessary economic activity and motivation to
increase production and to improve the trade capacities of domestic
economic and business entities.
The Honorable Villegas, during the caucus, said that this humble
Representation should read closely the debate on the textile bill in the United
States.
And I would like to quote from Asiaweek, issue of August 17, which
summarized the developments that followed the defeat of the Jenkins bill,
and I quote:
Jenkins defeat left intact MFA-4 (and this refers to the Multi-Fiber
Arrangement, which is a protectionist measure to protect the American
textile
industry). The pact will set standards for bilateral agreements and unilateral
restrictions on textile trade among contracting parties for the next five
years. Aside from the present cotton, wool, and synthetic fiber goods, it will
control yarn, fabric and apparel made of blends containing silk, ramie,
linen, jute, and other natural fibers, a U.S. demand. In the future, quotas may
be imposed on an item if the value or weight of its natural fiber content
is more than half its price or weight.
What I am trying to point out, Madam President, is that despite the defeat of
the Jenkins protectionist bill, protectionism as a matter of state policy
continues administratively and in all aspects in the United States, precisely
because the developed countries as well as the newly industrialized
countries
are all protectionist. I would also quote from an Appendix which an
economist, Dr. Romeo Bautista, and I included in our joint monograph. It is a
listing
of protectionist measures imposed by Japan on products of export interest to
the Philippines. This is page 111, Appendix 4 of the book Asian-Japan
Relations, Trade and Development. And in four pages were listed numerous
protectionist measures imposed by Japan on the products of the Philippines.
The
source is the NEDA Subcommittee on GATT matters. I shall have this xeroxed,
Madam President, for distribution to the Commission.
It might also be mentioned, Madam President, that in our age of
protectionism in the 1950s, local industries took off significantly. I would like
to quote
from the World Bank report on the Philippines, December 1963:
The progress of the Philippine economy during the decade of the 50s was
one of the more impressive records of economic gains among the less
developed
countries.
I repeat:
. . . one of the more impressive records of economic gains among the less
developed countries.
In more recent years, the conditions for expansion have been less buoyant
and the pace of economic growth more sluggish than during the decade.
Toward the
end of the decade, over-expansion was becoming evident in some lines and
the system of controls was creaking from various abuses and administrative
difficulties.
The system was replaced in 1959 by a gradual decontrol program, involving
rising exchange rates which culminated in 1962 in a virtually unrestricted
trade
and free exchange. This marked increase in the peso costs of exchange over
this period was undoubtedly an important factor in the sharp sag in industrial
profits. The expansion of manufacturing slowed down, and with it, the growth
of the economy as a whole.
This report of the World Bank illustrates that as a result of decontrol, there
was a marked increase in the peso costs of exchange which was undoubtedly
an
important factor in the sag of industrial profits.
I do not need to read from the entire report because I know time is limited. I
shall have this xeroxed also for distribution to the Commission for purposes
of record.
Suffice it to say, Madam President, that when the U.S. government and other
governments restricted the importation of items like textile, steel and cars
into their economy, they do so irrespective of whether the foreign
competition is fair or unfair; that the primary, if not the only, criterion is that
imports stunt the growth of domestic industries which are sources of
employment. In fact, the whole point of protection is to restrict imports in
order to
give domestic industries a controlling share of the domestic market.
When one, for example, imposes a protective tariff, that tariff applies on an
absolute basis, and is not selectively applied only to such imports as this
represents unfair competition.
The fundamental flaw in the subject section, which is Section 1, is that by

constitutional mandate, it would limit the protection of domestic industries
only to cases where unfair competition is deemed to exist. By necessary
implication, it ties the hands of the State, and would preclude or inhibit it
from
protecting domestic industries for reasons other than unfair competition.
There is nothing novel about protecting domestic industries from unfair
import competition. One does not have to elevate it to a constitutional
principle
except where the intention is to confine the States power of protection to
such cases only which seem to be what the section intends. If so, then the
subject section would constitutionally mandate a policy of minimal
protection. Furthermore, by experience, we know that applying protectionist
measures in
cases of unfair competition is a process which entails considerable
administrative difficulties. Unfair competition must be proved by the party
invoking
the governments protection which is not easy to do.
Antidumping cases, for example, are difficult to establish and timeconsuming. And dumping is one of the more familiar modes of unfair
competition.
Lastly, Madam President, we beg to disagree with the statement of the
Honorable Villegas that the constitutional mandate that protects local
industries and
businesses against foreign competition would discourage imports. I have
named the protectionist countries, such as Japan, South Korea, even the
United
States, but they have importations. So, there is necessarily no direct
correlation between protectionism and the ban against imports.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the next speaker?
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Garcia be recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Madam President.
What deeply disturbs us is that, as worded, the section in question virtually
leaves the government under no mandate or directive whatsoever to apply
direct modes of protection, even if such modes exemplified by outright
import controls have become obviously necessary. This is exactly the

problem which
the industrial sector faces. The government under IMF prodding would limit
and confine its protective action to tariffs which are ineffectual and may
easily be circumvented when what the objective condition dictates is that the
government avail of all protective weapons, particularly direct import
controls which virtually every government in the world today practices.
What the new Constitution should mandate is that protection should be
extended to domestic industries regardless of whether or not foreign import
competition is fair or unfair. And that the State should not confine its act of
protection to any one particular mode or method of accomplishing it. Why
should this be? This should be so because what we are really protecting in
protecting domestic industries is the domestic market itself. That market is
an
integral part of the national patrimony because it is the ultimate source of
wealth. It is through the market, through the profits that one makes from the
market, that capital accumulates and expands.
Unless domestic industries are able to control the domestic market, capital
expansion and accumulation will be severely restricted and impaired. This is
why the most progressive economies in the world today are economies
characterized by a policy of intense protectionism, chief among these being
Japan and
the new tigers of Asia; namely, Taiwan and South Korea.
Communist China has a closed market, having closed it since the advent of
the communist revolution in 1949. That is why it is now a highly
industrialized
state, having accomplished the status within a period of less than forty
years.
In the case of the Philippines it is proven and established that it was during
the import control decade of the 1950s that the economy experienced rapid
strides towards industrialization with unprecedented growth rates. This has
been confirmed by no less than the World Bank itself.
It is very important in this Article on National Economy and Patrimony that
we defend basically our sources of wealth as a nation, our natural resources
including the domestic market which is a source of our wealth as a people. In
many countries of Southeast Asia (SEA), there is very strong pride and effort
to protect the resources of ones nation. We, Members of the Commission,
should not find ourselves on the defensive when we are protecting our very
wealth,
our very resources as a nation. And I think this is what is mandated of us at
this moment. These Sections 1 and 3 are precisely the reasons for our effort
to reopen the debate. We should be very clear that we only have one market.
If we do not protect the Filipino market, who else will? Those of us who have
had experience with other nations, other governments, other economies,
realize that it is basically the responsibility of the nation, of its people to
protect their market. And yet here we have to find ourselves on the
defensive when we are protecting our very own natural resources and our
very own market
which, in the last analysis, remain the basic source of our wealth as a people.
And in the face of what we have just discussed, especially in the Article
on Social Justice, we realize more and more now that all our efforts to bring
about social justice will come to naught unless we, at the same time, have a
strong, self-reliant, self-sustaining, productive economy. And this is our
appeal to our companions, our colleagues in this Commission, that we should
come
together and close ranks in the protection of our own economy, our own
market and our own natural resources because they are the only ones we
have.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you very much.
I just have to speak up, Madam President. When Commissioners Villegas and
Monsod explained to us the provisions in the Article on National Economy
and
Patrimony, we listened.
As a matter of fact, we had caucuses to discuss it where they explained it to
the laymen, particularly the noneconomists in the Commission. The
explanations that were given were all on record. I wish I could take their word
for it. I am not an economist; definitely I am not versed in economics. As
a matter of fact, I must make a confession that I did not prepare for this
Article. I was concentrating on the work of the Committee on Social Justice to
which I belong, particularly on arts and culture, which we were expecting to
be discussed this week. As I said, I wish I could take their word for it, but
something bothered me and I spent an agitated weekend thinking about all
the explanations. Last week, when the coalition of businessmen presented
their
paper, I read it and I thought their espousal of industrialization, protectionism
and economic nationalism made sense. Last week also, when we were
arguing
for the percentages of 60-40 where from 100-percent Filipino control we
went down to 60-40 and then there was another proposal for 2/3-1/3 and it
lost
a Commissioner said that it was ridiculous that we were fighting percent for
percent in going down and that probably, since 66 2/3 percent or 2/3 lost, we
will go down to 65 percent. I wanted to answer and say that it was not
ridiculous, that it was pathetic that we were fighting inch by inch, percent for
percent, and that it did not matter whether it was one percent or .5 percent.
The point is I found it pathetic that we were fighting for one percent more
in favor of less control of foreign capital insofar as Filipino business is
concerned. And so, this morning I would like to speak and add my two-cents
worth not as an economist but as a film maker. I am not an economist; I do
not know the ins and outs of economic theory and practice, but I am trying to
understand the proposed provisions in the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony from the point of view of the ordinary and average Filipino layman.
As a film maker, I have had dealings with both the State and private
enterprise. The State has censored my films, and because of that I would
naturally be
opposed to restrictive, repressive and oppressive state intervention in the
affairs of the film industry. I also do not want the State to be producing
movies, especially the pornographic movies that the Experimental Cinema of
the Philippines used to do, because the censorship-free and tax-free movies
provided unfair competition to local movie producers. However, I would not
be opposed to the State providing grants, subsidies and tax incentives for
the
making of quality movies that the commercial movie industry would not
venture into by itself.
But I have also worked for private enterprises; that is to say, the movie
producers, the capitalists in the movie industry. And I know from experience
that
the movie producers are left to themselves as a general rule. They would be
doing nothing but sex and violence movies because that is where the money
is.
They do not care about social responsibility, the common good, the
preferential concern for the poor and the underprivileged. All they care about
is raking
in as much as they can in the form of profits.
The point is that we are not proposing state capitalism, socialism or
communism, but at the same time, I do not want unscrupulous capitalists
running
roughshod over the rest of the impoverished population. There should be
some form of state regulation to balance the legitimate business demands of
private
enterprise with the urgent social needs of the poor.
One of the criteria in appointing the Members of this Constitutional

Commission was nationalism. In the Philippine context, I would expect
nationalism to
mean preferential concern for Filipinos giving Filipinos a better deal in their
own country. However, from what I have read and heard so far as a Member
of this Constitutional Commission, I get the impression that we are paying lip
service to nationalism and, at the same time, making it extremely difficult
for Filipinos to survive in their own country.
The Ople amendment is so vaguely and ambiguously worded that it seems to
be taking with the right hand what it is giving with the left hand. For
instance,
it proposes unfair foreign competition; but let us face it, the Philippine
economy is in such a terrible state right now that any form of competition is
bound to be unfair. If we allow cheap foreign sardines from Taiwan to come in
without limitation, we will be driving our own fishermen out of business. If
we allow cheap rattan furniture from Korea to flood the domestic market, we
will ultimately be killing our own furniture industry. Sure, we will be getting
cheaper goods in the short run. This was what Commissioner Villegas said:
Fifty-five million Filipinos will be buying cheaper imported goods. That
should
make consumers happy. That should make everybody happy, but let us not
forget that consumers are also producers of goods. When the fishers can no
longer
fish and furniture makers can no longer make furniture, they would not have
any money to buy anything, not even cheap foreign goods. They will have no
income, and they and their children will go hungry; and very soon we will be
faced with more poverty than we started out with, and more mass unrest.
The domestic market should be considered an integral part of the national
patrimony. It should be preserved for Filipino producers who should be
protected
by direct and indirect measures from all forms of foreign competition. We
have heard all these arguments before that foreign investments and
foreign
loans are good for the economy. In the past, we constitutionalized parity and
investment incentives, service contracts and other things that allowed
foreign control of our economy. We have had all that before, but to echo
Commissioner Tans question last week: Why are we still so poor?
So, Madam President, this is too much to bear and I plead with this august
body for a reconsideration of Section 1 of the Article on the National
Economy
and Patrimony.

Members of the Commission, I also would like to express some of my own
thoughts. I did not prepare any position paper but this is just a reflection of
what
I had gone through after last Fridays session. I recognize that there are so
many people here waiting probably to hear the discussion on the Article on
Local Governments. Our Muslim brothers and sisters here probably want to
know the fate of the autonomous region for the Bangsa Moro people. But I
think it
is just as important for them to know just what our position is on the issue of
national economy which is vital not only for the Bangsa Moro people but for
the rest of the country.
During the weekend it appeared in the papers that two of us revealed or
commented to the press people who heard us during that encounter shortly
after we
voted unanimously for Section 1 that we did not realize the impact, the real
import, of what we had approved, because after having gone through the
caucus,
I thought I fully understood when I listened to our experts in the Committee.
Considering that I am not an economist I am from the health sector and I
have not gone through any rigorous course in economics on my part it was
plain understanding of an ordinary housewife, an ordinary citizen.
So when the people who felt very strongly about this came over and with
reasons I suppose because it meant something very important to them I
had to
think. We have heard people in the public hearings, but we have not really
come across such a broad coalition that wants to let us know its position at
this point in time. Maybe the time when we had the public hearings, our
Members have not realized the impact or the import of what we will provide
in the
Constitution. So when they came asking us to give them due hearing, we
said that we cannot do that because it might open the floodgates to many
people
coming here and asking us to listen to them also. But we did open our
session hall; the womens group came over here, had their scroll presented
to us, and
we had a picture taking with them. They came down to our desks and
everybody entertained the lobbyists, as we call them.
For the pro-life people we had a special time; they herded us from the lounge
to listen to them and to sit through their presentation. When the Cordillera
people came in their G-strings and costumes and all that, they came
knocking at our hearts to listen to their plea for an autonomous region, so
did the
Bangsa Moro people.
But when the businessmen who felt very strongly about these sentiments did
come, I think we did not give them just as much time as we gave others. As a
matter of fact, it resulted in that kind of reaction heated exchanges. But I
suppose that they have just as much right to come and appeal to us because
what we will be putting down in this particular section and article will mean a
big difference on whether they are going to survive in their own land. And
I also felt, as a member of the Committee on Social Justice, what good all
these provisions on social justice will do, if there will be no mass employment
and no economic recovery?
So, even among us who pride ourselves in having accomplished something,
we will not really find any translation or implementation as long as we
remain
poor. But why do we remain poor? I think all of us have heard the arguments
of why we remain poor in spite of all the wealth or richness of our country.
I believe that we know how it is when the Members of this Commission have
set their minds to. It is very easy to just vote down an article especially if
they are convinced that theirs is the right decision. But who is to say that
theirs is right and ours is wrong? I think we have often asked ourselves: Are
we responding to the peoples needs? And who are these people that we
should respond to? Are these the people who come here and really present
their
plight? Are these the silent majority, or are these just a few people who come
to us and ask us to pressure the body for the passage of a provision? So I
feel that even if it is a losing battle I have realized that in this Commission,
it is a numbers game I would like to put on record what I have gone
through agonizingly, realizing that probably I made a mistake in having voted
for Section 1.
The people who signed this resolution have so rationally presented this to us
so that it would become part of the Journal of this august body. I think that
all of us have copies of this. We have seen this published in the newspapers.
Since it has not been fully registered in the Journal, I would like to go
through some of the important points which convinced me that probably I
really did commit a wrong to the people who have wanted so much that
economic
protectionism, Filipinization and industrialization be the pathway, the
underlying direction for our national development. So I will start with the
points
that they have so strongly stated:
Only through a full and rapid industrialization (of our economy). . . can we
create, in a massive scale, the work opportunities that will absorb the
millions of unemployed and underemployed; (the unemployed who have to
go to different countries to sell themselves, their labor power, even their
bodies,
to work in many other parts of the world, and the underemployed here who
have to work just to survive day to day), and that corollarily, only by a
rigorous
system of economic protectionism similar to that in force in virtually every
nation in the world, both the developed and newly industrialized countries,
can we foster the industrialization of this country.
We specifically refer to the recent study of the political economist, Alejandro
Lichauco. Copies of that study have been distributed to the Members of the
Commission among with this letter that they have sent us.
Industrialization and economic protectionism, as an indispensable means to
industrialization, are of vital importance and urgency to warrant their
incorporation in the new Constitution.
If social justice is significant enough to be incorporated into the Constitution
as an objective of state policy, with more reason should industrialization
and economic protectionism be similarly incorporated.
There can be no meaningful program of social justice as long as mass
unemployment exists, and as long as our economic system is unable to
generate massive
work opportunities, which it can only do through industrialization. History has
shown no other way.
They have a particular reason for making this appeal; and this is I think
this has been mentioned already by Commissioner Villacorta that the
industrialization of this country has been delayed far too long. They continue:
Unless we industrialize, by the end of the century, which will come in less
than 15 years, we will be the most backward and the most impoverished
nation in
Southeast Asia. And the most exploited. Every nation in Asia is fast
industrializing.
To cut down on time, I move, Madam President, for the inclusion of the
coalitions petition (the entire document) in the registered communications in
the
Reference of Business to be part of the Journal, so that future generations

will read what the businessmen, workers group, consumers group and the
rest
of the ordinary citizens of the land had said to the 48 Members of this
Constitutional Commission. I share with them this concern, so I say that if
what
they say will be the implication, then I do not want to be a party to this kind
of provision which we have just approved last Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we proceed further, may the Chair just react to a
portion of the statement of Commissioner Quesada that we failed to
entertain or to
recognize the group of businessmen that was here last Friday.
There was a recess then when a group I cannot remember exactly who
were there but I remember Charito Planas was there called my attention to
a
newspaper publication, an open letter addressed to me. And I informed them
that I have received a copy and that, in fact, I have caused copies of this
newspaper publication to be distributed to all the Commissioners. Then when
we resumed our session we were in regular session breaking all tradition
and
rules, I believe, of a parliamentary assembly requiring the President to
refrain as much as possible from participating in any discussion the Chair,
on
my own initiative, called the attention of Chairman Villegas to the
publication, to that open letter and I even showed him a copy of that letter.
The Chair
inquired from Commissioner Villegas whether the allegations and statements
made in that letter were considered in the preparation, in the discussion and
in
the finalization of the report, because the ideas there are not new; actually,
as stated, they are old ideas. And Chairman Villegas said that they were
considered.
And so, it is only on that point that the Chair wants to clarify to our guests
that there has never been any attempt on the part of the head of this
Commission to deny anybody. In fact, I had been criticized because I have
been quite liberal; I have allowed people to occupy portions of this building
to
express their views. Individuals and groups have been welcomed but, as
stated in our resolution, we also have to respect the dignity of our

proceedings.
And so, I just want to assure everybody here that everybody is free to come,
discuss and submit their proposals but within the Rules of the Constitutional
Commission.
Thank you.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you very much for that information, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: May I ask for a two-minute suspension of session, Madam
President.
It was 11:03 a.m.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President. I will be very short.
For the reasons and interpellations already expressed and without prejudice
to further elaboration of the points raised, pro or con, and the other points
which may also be raised, I believe that we should continue our discussion
on the floor on this crucial issue of Section 1. I hope the body will agree to a
reopening and reconsideration of its approval that all the issues will be
expressed and all the points will be raised.
From my own point of view, I believe that what is involved here is basically a
question of economic sovereignty. We really have to go into a further
discussion of our concept of industrialization, protectionism and degree of
participation of the people, and I hope that we will come into some
agreement
as a whole body.
I think Section 1, as approved, operates to curtail the sovereign power of the
State to protect its most important economic resource, the domestic market
for the nations output of goods and services. We cannot stress the supreme
and paramount importance of the issues raised by our fellow Members and
colleagues in this Commission, and our people will never forgive us should
we fail to give this subject the thorough and extensive deliberation which it
deserves. So, I would like to reiterate the request.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Villegas be recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, first, I would like to make some general
statements presenting a framework through which members of the
Committee and the
one who proposed the specific amendment, Commissioner Ople, can follow
me. Taking the lead from a very important question asked by Commissioner
Quesada,
Who is to say who is right? in the specific question, I would like to remind
all in this body that economics is a very inexact science, and I think all
of us have been witnesses to its inexactness. As I said in one of the debates
concerning the bicameral versus unicameral form of government, in trying to
define the common good and especially in this specific case, there is always
a mosaic of legitimate vested interests that have to be recognized. And the
most serious error in economics, in fact, in all of political life, is never an
absolute falsehood but an oversimplification, being obsessed with partial
truth and equating it with the whole truth.
Now, the Committee could have been perfectly within reason if it insisted on
its original view that all these requests for industrialization, protectionism
and economic nationalism could have been completely subsumed by the
original statement that all economic sectors shall be given optimum
opportunity to
develop. In the spirit precisely of constitutional language being as succinct as

possible, we could have insisted on that view that all of the very
legitimate requests from legitimate vested interests and policy-oriented
views that we are getting would have been sufficiently covered by that
omnibus
statement that all economic sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to
develop. But precisely in the spirit of reconciliation, in the spirit of
open-mindedness and accommodation, we agreed to risk the danger of
introducing policy-oriented terminologies into the Constitution. And let me
set the
record very straight. All the arguments that have been presented by our
esteemed colleagues have been eloquently stated and summarized in one of
the public
hearings by probably one of the most convincing proponents of
protectionism, nationalism and industrialization, Economist Hilarion Henares.
I am sure the
committee members will attest to the fact that he made a presentation to
the whole Committee. And we heard all the views that have been presented
today.
Again, let me set the record straight Mr. Henares is one of the most
eloquent proponents of the views of the coalition; and he was given full
hearing by
the Committee.
Now, let me make it very clear that when we decided, precisely in the spirit
of open-mindedness, to introduce a word like protect, we were clearly
including the definition of protection, quota restrictions, tariffs, non-tariff,
subsidies, the whole works, as the legislature will see fit. And I do not
think there is any quarrel about the sovereignty of the Philippine government
to introduce any form of protection that it may deem due.
Just to give the body a very graphic example of the dangers of
oversimplification, the dangers of being obsessed with partial truth to the
exclusion of the
whole truth, let me use the very same article that was given to us by the
coalition in support of their views. I am very flattered, so to speak, that this
specific article was distributed, because the author, a top Korean economist
who heads the Korean Development Institute of the Korean government, is a
good
friend of mine and we sat in the same Board of Economists for Asia-Pacific. I
do not know if all of the Commissioners had the patience to read through this
article that was distributed to all of us, together with the declaration that
Madam President Muoz Palma also asked to be distributed. This was an
article
by Dr. Suh Sang Mok, a Korean economist, entitled Stemming the Tide of
New Protectionism. It is amusing but also, of course, understandable that
the
coalition decided to underline very select paragraphs in this article. And
those select paragraphs highlighted what is already well-known that in all
countries, whether industrialized or nonindustrialized, developed or
developing, there are always legitimate vested interests asking for
protection; that
in many of these industrialized countries, like the United States and Japan,
there are dying industries like textile that are singing their swan song and
making last-ditch efforts in complete opposition to the common good, to the
common economic good, to save their industries.
If the body will note and will read it through, the whole article of my
colleague, Dr. Suh Sang Mok, is an eloquent appeal to the whole world to
reject
protectionism. In the very same article that was distributed, to indicate that
there are some last-ditch attempts all over the world to save protectionism,
there was a very dramatic appeal. And let me read the parts that were not
underlined. He said:
Despite the worsening of the trade environment, Korea has undertaken a
comprehensive import liberalization program. The number of Korean import,
subject to
quantitative restriction declined to 12% this year, from 32% in 1977, while
the average nominal tariff rate fell to 20% from 36% during the same period.
Declining oil prices and the recent alignment of currencies make this an
opportune moment to reverse the protectionist trend, with improved
prospects for
economic recovery, both the industrialized and developing countries should
accelerate their efforts to achieve a freer trade environment.
And, finally, he concludes the article. This last paragraph is the punchline. He
says:
In the struggle for free trade, concerted action by all involved parties is vital.
By definition, trade involves interdependence. If some nations failed to
support free trade by maintaining protectionist barriers and defying the rules
established by GATT, retaliatory spirals can lead only to an eventual
collapse of the global trade environment (And I must say, to a no-win
situation for all). Clearly, no one would benefit from such a collapse. The
industrialized and developing countries must cooperate to reverse the recent
rise to protectionism. The best time to act is now.
So, this is a Korean economist appealing to the whole world that any
tendency towards protectionism, no matter who may initiate such tendency,
is
self-destructive, is the road to international economic suicide.
Now, just to address distinctly the point raised by Commissioner Villacorta
about the Jenkins bill, I have here the latest issue of The Economist. That has
already been cited by Commissioner Bennagen on another occasion. For the
information of the nonspecialists, this magazine The Economist is probably
the
best economic magazine for the layman in the whole world. If we are looking
for the most informed economic information, read this London-based
magazine.
So, in an editorial of this weeks issue, the title is Routing Protectionists, it
says:
Even at the height of summer, most of the 240 million Americans wear
clothes most of the time. Fewer than two million of them work in the cloth
and
clothing industry which is more profitable than most in manufacturing and
mainly situated in the States with below average unemployment. The mills
are
still shedding labor but not because of foreign competition. They are
protected by tariff six times higher than those for American manufacturing
generally.
It is the productivity case brought by modern equipment which is helping
them to increase output with fewer workers.
So, I do not quarrel with the very factual statement of Commissioner
Villacorta that despite the defeat of the Jenkins bill, this dying industry in the
States is still being protected. There is no quarrel. But the point is, the whole
world is precisely condemning that protectionist move. And it is hurting
the Americans themselves and hurting the whole world.
The editorial continues:
To be so close to such foolishness is yet another sign that America is
slouching towards protectionism. The administrations commitment to free
trade has
wobbled sadly in the past month.
Why is this nonsense happening? Remember, this is written by an economics
journal in a country, Great Britain, that started the whole question of
protectionism 200 years ago. And they have learned from their own
mistakes. So why is this nonsense happening? Mainly because it is easy for
politicians to
buy votes by blaming imports for every layoff in the heartlands, and easier
still to indulge in Japan-bashing. Free trade is a doctrine supported by the
weight of history and wisdom, but without a political constituency, consumer

groups have proved too small, too busy or just too chicken to take on union
bosses and businessmen who have wrapped themselves in the stars and
stripes. The editorial ends:
Closet free traders in Congress have no reason to be embarrassed by their
views. The statistics do not lie. Americans are importing $370 billion worth of
goods a year which does not suggest a burning hatred of all things foreign.
And I completely concur with Commissioner Villacortas statement that the
Americans are very open to imports. And that is exactly the point that it is
false to say that the Americans have been systematically and deliberately
keeping underdeveloped countries as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
That is
the biggest inaccuracy. Precisely, as Commissioner Brocka said in our caucus,
one who goes to the United States cannot buy anything made in the U.S.
Everything is made in Korea, in Taiwan, in Japan and in the Philippines which
is the most eloquent evidence that the U.S. developed mostly because of
openness to trade, and protection is the exception that proves the rule.
Finally, let me answer the very moving question that has just been asked by
Commissioner Quesada that was asked previously by Commissioner Tan,
Why do we
remain poor? By the way, in a private conversation, when I was asking
Commissioner Tan about how it is in Leveriza, she said it would be paradise if
we
have more jobs available. I am now giving my explanation why we are poor;
and this is my economic opinion which I do not, in any way, dogmatically
defend.
I am listening to all sides. But after studying the economic problems over the
last 20 years, there are three main reasons why we are not in paradise to
use the phrase of Commissioner Tan:
First, precisely over the last 30 years, from the 1950s to the early 1980s, we
encouraged the growth of very capital-intensive industries that did not
contribute at all to the creation of employment opportunities. Not only
through tariff protection, through completely over-valuing the peso for years
and
years and through giving all of these industries access to artificially cheap
capital, we encouraged industries that completely glossed over our
tremendous
pool of unemployed workers. And does the body know what is the summary
of all those policies? The summary is called protectionism. We overly
protected
capital-intensive industries and they did not contribute at all to the
generation of millions and millions of jobs that were necessary in order to
employ
the more than 700,000 new workers that appear in the labor force year in
and year out.
The second explanation for our mass poverty is what Commissioner Tadeo
has been reminding this body from the very beginning. We completely
neglected
agricultural productivity. There is a whole world of difference between
agricultural production and agricultural productivity. Sure, we expanded rice
production; sure, we expanded sugar production; sure, we expanded coconut
production; but how? Through expanding hectarage. Our means of
production got
more and more unproductive and the yield per hectare in all of these
agricultural sectors declined year in and year out. That is why the poor
farmer was
not making the necessary income.
And the third explanation is rather very obvious: Twenty years of a corrupt
and a repressive regime looted billions and billions of dollars away from this
economy. I do not have to elaborate.
Those are, from my standpoint as a student of economic development of the
Philippines, the three main reasons why we are not in economic paradise,
and the
first one of which is precisely protectionism.
I would like to ask Commissioner Ople to add some remarks especially
concentrating on the formulation of his amendment.
I suppose I have a duty to speak in defense of that portion of the section, the
authorship of which is attributed to me, although I must make it clear that
this was one of the most amended provisions of Section 1. This has to do
with the statement on industrialization based on sound agricultural
development
and agrarian reform and, of course, there is a last sentence in that
paragraph, one of the nubs of the ongoing controversy, which states that
the State
shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade
practices. That last sentence, I gather, was negotiated earlier from the
Committee by no less than Commissioner Suarez who was in the situation of
extracting blood from a turnip. If I understood that situation correctly just so,
there would be a statement that would emphasize the obligation of the State
to protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade

practices. Now, I think some of us on later reflection thought that the word
unfair was very limiting and, therefore, would consider it a matter of honor
and of life and death that this word should be expunged from that sentence. I
did not author that sentence. It was Commissioner Suarez and the
Committee
that agreed on it but I thought it was a very worthwhile addition to that
paragraph on industrialization.
To drop the word unfair would have two consequences, I believe: It would
build permanent Great Walls of China around the Philippine economy which
no
Congress in the future could dismantle because it is a constitutional mandate
and within those walls in effect, we are sanctioning forever a regime of
shabby products exorbitantly priced and the cost of which is lodged forever
on the back of the common man. That is what that will mean. It will then
deprive the future Congress of any element of flexibility to deal with volatile
domestic and international situations. It is a mandate that once and for
all, and today and forever, the Philippine market is surrendered as a captive
market to some of our own industries that will, therefore, lack the impulse
and the impetus for improving their own efficiency, their own
competitiveness for delivering products to the Filipino consumers that will
combine good
quality with lower cost. And it is in fact going to be a sentence of permanent
economic stagnation for the Philippines.
In addition to that, I am repelled by the thought that some of our own
industries will perpetually be excused from rendering their own patriotic
service to
their own country by becoming the true anointed arm of the Filipino nation,
for taking advantage of the dynamism of the entire international market
environment so that we can earn the hard currency to finance our
industrialization. Where are we going to get the money to finance our
industrialization?
It cannot come from perpetual subsidies. Part of that subsidy comes from the
State through tax exemptions, but most of the subsidy comes from the
common
man, because these tariff walls of 30 years standing have insulated the
manufacturer from the risk of competition and, therefore, of becoming more
efficient, and have denied to the Filipino consumer, the common man, the
right to be served with better products that cost less.
To equate an absolute protectionism with patriotism, I think, would be the
greatest and the most dangerous of fallacies. I think the task of this
Commission is not to shut off the Philippine economy from the rest of the
world to become a hermit economy, to shut off all windows so that no
bracing
winds of competition would ever touch the shores of the Philippine economy,
because if they are allowed to come in, even in the most deliberately
measured
doses, even a whiff of such winds would collapse the shaky pillars of some of
our own industries.
I have nothing against Philippine industry. I do not own a single share of
Philippine industry. But, at the same time, as a Filipino, I would like to put
our industries to high standards of patriotic duty that would not consist of
demanding a closed market parceled out among themselves, that would
perpetuate
the profits that they are making through monopoly control.
Let me single out one of them: the FILSYN. FILSYN is a monopoly. The reason
the cost of the shirt to the average worker in Manila is two-and a-half times
that of Taiwan and Hongkong is precisely these irrational blind protectionist
policies have insured to this monopoly, 25% of whose stocks are Taiwanese,
complete domination of the local textile field, charging, I gather, twice the
price of comparable yarn that one can bring in. And that is what I mean: the
burden of that policy ultimately rests on the back of the common man, the
worker who must pay exorbitant cost for a shirt that, in quality, will suffer
still by comparison with that which manufacturers in our own neighborhood
can make.
My friends, Madam President, I rise in opposition to the motion for
reconsideration. It is not because I do not welcome freedom of debate. The
record shows
I have always stood for it at all times. But I believe there are considerations
of dignity, independence and even integrity that are at stake in this
issue.
As with other deliberative assemblies, Madam President, whatever we do
here, together with the rulings of the Chair, creates the force of precedent as
part
of our Rules. It is true that anyone can file a motion for reconsideration within
the time limits allowed by the Rules. On past occasions, we will recall,
Madam President, we even suspended the Rules to allow reconsiderations of
previous decisions beyond the limit of 48 hours.
The President of the Commission, in all her rulings, has exemplified the very
spirit of liberality itself. But let us start with the simple and unadorned
fact that last Friday, all of us voted unanimously for this section. I think the
Record of the Constitutional Commission will show that.
Now, some of us want to renege on that collective decision, and that is the
reason for the motion for reconsideration. In spite of that, the Chair has
allowed the fullest possible debate, not on the motion itself as a procedure,
but on the merit of the issue. And I congratulate the Chair, again, for that
liberality.
But, Madam President, when the avowed reason for seeking a
reconsideration, especially when the vote sought to be reconsidered by
external pressures so
openly and brazenly exerted and so proudly acknowledged by some
Members of this Commission, I think this Commission should draw the line.
We are not
speaking of belated illuminations from heaven, or of the grace of a sudden
revelation from sustained analysis of the facts or the evidence. The provision
targeted by this motion Section 1 of the draft Article was subjected to
the most exhaustive debates and one of the most demanding amending
processes
ever experienced on the floor of this Commission.
The proponents of the motion not only vigorously and forcefully took part;
they have enriched and strengthened this particular section with their own
amendments. Perhaps, the illumination, at the last minute, may have come
from the position paper of the Coalition for Protectionism in the Constitution.
But at that time, this document was already fully available. It became, as a
matter of fact, a valued input into the debates and the process of
amendment.
It was not ignored; it was seriously and sympathetically considered. But there
is certainly no call, I submit, to consider this external document
whatever its merits as a controlling and binding guide for this
I submit that because of these amendments and probably because of the
help from this document that I had mentioned, this section has become so
strong that
the Minister of Trade and Industry, the Honorable Jose Concepcion, was
quoted as saying that this formulation, as it now stands, might repel foreign
investors and the trading partners of the Philippines. On one hand, Minister
Concepcion says by this section we are scaring badly needed investments so
critical to our economic recovery. On the other hand, we are warned by some
of the lobbyists whose behavior on the floor was censured by this
Commission
last Saturday that in approving this, we, the entire Commission that voted
unanimously for this provision, had committed treason, and I repeat, treason.
This accusation against the Commission published by the Philippine Daily
Inquirer and attributed to Mr. Alejandro Lichauco has never been denied.
Therefore, Madam President, even as the motion for reconsideration stands

here, we are all stigmatized as traitors to our country and people, and the
proponents of the motion seem to act as though we could remove this
stigma from our collective reputation by reconsidering our unanimous
approval of
Section 1.
May I remind the Commission that treason is a capital offense punishable
with death. Perhaps, it was used lightly, metaphorically, cavalierly; but I
submit
this is a serious, irresponsible and damaging charge against this
Constitutional Commission and every Member thereof. And I am not about to
ratify this
indictment against this body by voting for the motion for reconsideration.
As a Member of this Commission, I am proud of this draft section that we
have together approved, especially as it was amended, including those who
now seek
to reconsider it. This is a formulation that bears the stamp of our own
authentic and independent will of a Constitutional Commission a
prescription for
an independent and self-reliant economy under effective Filipino control
(under effective Filipino control that came from Commissioner Garcia); a
mandate for industrialization and protection of Filipino enterprises from
unfair competition and trade practice, and a fiat for new and innovative
corporate forms of economic participation by the people themselves (that
was again an amendment from my friend, Commissioner Garcia).
A burden of proof to show that this is an inadequate and even a treacherous
document rests not upon this Commission but on those who have maligned
us and
who have been uttering threats to punish us by campaigning against the new
Constitution. To vote for this motion is not only to admit the charge against
us
by indirection but to complete our humiliation by an act of capitulation and
surrender.
I, therefore, urge the Commission, Madam President, to vote against this
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Gentleman yield to some questions, Madam
President?

I heard the Commissioner say absolute protectionism. Where did he get
the idea of absolute protectionism?
MR. OPLE: I was making that remark on the basis of a hypothetical omission
or dropping or deletion of the term unfair preceding competition in the
last
sentence of the paragraph on industrialization, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I understand that Commissioner Ople is the author of the
amendment asking for the adoption of a policy of industrialization, but
without
mentioning protectionism, am I right?
MR. OPLE: That is true, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Would the Commissioner agree with me if I say that the
Constitutional Commission, after adopting the policy of industrialization,
should
likewise adopt a companion policy of selective protectionism?
MR. OPLE: Selective protectionism is not abandoned by the adoption of
unfair competition, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: If we pursue the policy of industrialization, in accordance with
the Commissioners amendment, is it not true that there will be new
industries to be set up and just like babies, they should need nourishment
through protectionism?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I believe that we should protect our infant industries.
MR. NOLLEDO: And that when some well-meaning Members of this
Commission advocate protectionism as a matter of policy in the Constitution,
we do not
necessarily advocate absolute protectionism. Congress itself may fix a period
during which some policies or some provisions on protectionism should be
adopted in order to protect newly established industries; would the
Commissioner agree with me?
MR. OPLE: The paragraph as written will not foreclose the option of Congress
to do that, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Would the Commissioner agree with me if I say that
competition is not the only factor that should be considered in order that we
may have good
products or high quality products? He stated absolutely that without

competition, our local industries would have no means of improving their
products.
Would the Commissioner agree with me if I say that there should be
incentives on the part of the government to be granted to these new
industries and that
the government itself is expected to adopt or set forth rules of standards that
should be observed to attain high quality products?
MR. OPLE: The government has not been wanting in incentives for domestic
industries. As a matter of fact, I think Commissioner Monsod will confirm that
the
NEDA and even the Ministry of Trade and Industry feel that we may have to
review some of these incentives which have not certainly provided an
impetus for
our industries to be more efficient and more competitive. So, I agree with
these incentives.
MR. NOLLEDO: Does the Commissioner agree with me?
MR. OPLE: Yes, but the industries can have an excess of incentives that
practically teach them not to be self-reliant but to be forever dependent.
MR. NOLLEDO: That what the Commissioner is fearful about is an irrational
protectionism?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: And, therefore, protectionism as recommended by some
Commissioners is not exactly rational.
MR. OPLE: We can debate about the extent to which the present policies are
rational or not, but certainly in this paragraph, and especially in the last
sentence, what we are trying to do is to give Congress the flexibility that it
will need to enact laws that will put this mandate into operation. But if we
remove the qualifier unfair from the phrase competition and trade
practices, that is what I would call an absolute protectionism. I am not
against
protectionism where it is rationally utilized, for example, to protect
fledgling industries, but I am against a theory of perpetual infancy, according
to
which all of them forever must be subsidized and protected for their own
good.
MR. NOLLEDO: To my mind, whether the Commissioner agrees with me or
not, by providing for industrialization without protectionism, there is created
a
lameduck provision.
MR. OPLE: We will correct the hiatus in the Commissioners perception when
given the opportunity in the future, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized.
Our humble name was alluded to by Commissioner Ople regarding the
supposed authorship of the last sentence of Section 1. If I may trace the
genesis of this
particular sentence, I did inform Commissioner Ople that I was instrumental
in authoring that particular sentence. But during the early committee
hearing,
when there was a hue and cry regarding the possible use of the terms
protection, protect or protectionism, the Committee was put in a
quandary. Being
a lawyer, and in order to reach a compromise, we suggested the sentence:
The State shall protect the interest of Filipino enterprises. Later on, in the
course of the committee discussions, the phrase against foreign
competition was included. Then after that, there was an insistence on the
insertion of
the word unfair. So on the committee level, in order that we could at least
submit an acceptable proposition, we came up finally with the sentence The
State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition
without the additional phrase and trade practices. There was a debate and
a
discussion on the use of the term unfair. The consensus of the Committee
was that we should include it and submit it for discussion on the floor.
So, this matter of partial paternity is correct. I am only explaining to the
honorable Commissioners how it happened that the authorship was
attributed to
this humble Representation. It was not full parenthood. It was only partial. In
fairness to both of us I told Commissioner Ople: Hey, I spent about twenty
or twenty-five minutes to have the word protect included here, so you
better include it in your proposed amendment.
That is exactly how it happened.

MR. TADEO: Gusto ko lang pong linawin ang sinabi ni Commissioner Villegas
tungkol sa agricultural productivity na humihina daw sa kasalukuyan, na
para
bang ito ang dahilan ng kahirapan ng mga magbubukid.
Noong wala pa ang IRRI sa Pilipinas ay umaani lamang tayo ng 30 kaban sa
bawat ektarya. Nang dumating ang IRRI sa Pilipinas noong March 8, 1960,
umani
naman tayo ng average of 46 cavans per hectare. Ngunit tayo pa rin ang
may pinakamaliit na ani sa buong mundo. Suriin natin ang mga pangyayari.
Nang
dumating ang IRRI sa Pilipinas, nakita ng kaibigan nating siyentipiko sa Los
Baos na ang IRRI ang didikta sa ating pamahalaan kung ano ang programa
sa
produksiyon ng bigas. Nang dumating ang IRRI, ipinakilala sa atin ang highyielding varieties na matakaw sa pataba at pestisidyo. Kapag binhing ito ang
itinanim, siguradong gagamit ng chemical fertilizer. Kapag gumamit tayo ng
chemical fertilizer, lalambot ang palay natin at magiging fibrous. Kapag hindi
naman tayo gumamit ng pestisidyo, aatakihin ng peste at sakit ang palay
natin. Kapag gumamit na tayo ng pestisidyo, tiyak na hindi lamang iyan. Ang
palay
na ito ay matakaw sa patubig, kaya kinakailangang umutang tayo sa ADB, sa
World Bank o sa IMF, kaya ang irrigation system sa Pilipinas ay hindi na pagaari
ng Pilipino; ito ay pag-aari na ng ADB, IMF at ng World Bank. Dati ang bayad
lamang sa patubig ay P60 bawat ektarya, ngunit nang mangutang tayo sa
ADB,
World Bank at IMF, ang bayad sa patubig ngayon ay P875. Hindi lamang iyan.
Nasira ang bayanihan spirit. Dahil ang binhi ay short-maturing varieties, wala
na ang panahong magbayanihan; gumagamit na lang tayo ng makinarya sa
pagsasaka. Dati ang upa sa makinarya ay P150 lamang. Noong kalabaw ang
ginagamit sa
pagsasaka, hindi nga kami gumagamit ng makinarya.
Sa Bulacan, 90 porsiyento ang gumagamit ng makinaryang puro produktong
dayuhan. Ang bayad noon sa makinarya ay P150 per hectare; ngayon ay
P1,050 na. Dati
ang fertilizer ay P30 per bag, ngunit ngayon ay P200 na. Dati P16 ang per
quart ng insecticide ngunit ngayon ay P200 na. Tumaas ang produksyon ng
palay.
Mula sa 30 cavans ito ay naging 46, ngunit napunta ba ang pagdami ng

produksyon sa bulsa ng magbubukid? Hindi. Napunta ito sa bulsa ng
multinationals.
Sasabihin ko sa inyo. Ang IRRI ay 25 taon na sa Pilipinas. Itinatag ito noong
March 8, 1960, kayat silver jubilee nila noong 1985. Ngunit tingnan ninyo
ang kalagayan ng magbubukid sa Pilipinas. Alam ba ninyo na sa
pamamagitan ng chemical fertilizer , nalalason at nagiging maasim ang ating
lupa kayat hindi
na ngayon ito productive? Ang kailangan natin ay organic fertilizer, compostmaking. Ang IRRI ba ay gumawa ng organic fertilizer sa loob ng 25 taon sa
Pilipinas? Hindi. Ang itinuro nila ay ang pagkontrol ng mga insekto o mga
peste ng mga halaman. Dalawang klase ang mga insektong iyan: beneficial
insects
and harmful insects. Sa tinatawag na ecological balance kailangang talunin
ang harmful insects at paramihin ang beneficial insects. Ito ang paraan ng
biological control. Darating ang panahong mawawala na ang mga harmful
insects. Hindi na tayo gagamit ng pestisidyong nilikha ng IRRI sapagkat kung
gagamit
tayo nito, mamamatay ang beneficial insects. Magiging perpetually
dependent na tayo sa produkto nila. Ibig kong sabihin kay Commissioner
Villegas na ang
ating manok, the one developed by IRRI, ay tinatawag na Los Baos
Cantonese. Walang maipaparis na ibang manok na native sa Pilipinas dahil
wala itong
proteksiyon. Ano ang sinabi ng ating mga technocrats? Mas magaling pa ang
sabi nila na umangkat tayo ng breeding stock sa labas ng bansa kaysa tayo
ang
magpalahi sa Pilipinas. Bumagsak ang Lorenzo Farm, ang pangunahing magiitlog sa Nueva Ecija noon. Naging perpetually dependent tayo sa IRRI.
At alam ba ninyo ang paraan ng U.S.? Bibigyan tayo ng babae at lalaki ng A
and B lines, halimbawa, lalaki ng A at babae ng B. pero hindi tayo bibigyan
ng
pure A and B lines o ang babaet lalaki ng A or B. Sapagkat alam nilang
kapag ginawa nila iyon, hindi na tayo aasa sa kanila. Ang ibinibigay lang sa
atin
ay laging isa upang maging perpetually dependent tayo sa kanila. Kapag
inangkat natin ang breeding stock, kailangang angkatin rin ang environment
at ang
technology kung paano sila palalakihin. Sinabi mismo ito ng Animal Science
Director ng UP Los Baos. Mayroon tayong baboy na tinatawag na Berkjala at
itoy
hindi rin binigyan ng proteksiyon.
Tutol ako kay Commissioner Villegas sa sinabi niyang wala tayong magagawa
kung bakit 90 porsiyento ng mga sanggol sa Pilipinas ay kinakailangang
umasa sa
dayuhang gatas, sapagkat ang ating niyog ay mayroong 20 o 21 porsiyento
ng protinang katulad ng gatas na kung pauunlarin natin ay makalulutas ng
70 to 78
porsiyento ng malnutrisyon sa kanayunan. Pero iyan ba ay binigyan ng
proteksiyon?
Tungkol naman sa self-reliant, independent economy, ang ibig sabihin nitoy
nasa kontrol ng Pilipino ang ekonomiya. Pero nang suriin namin ang
probisyon,
nakita naming mayroon itong mga loopholes. Katulad din ito ng probisyon sa
agrarian reform na binotohan ko rin sa dahilang hindi ako abogado at hindi
ako
economist. Ngunit matapos namin itong suriin, nakita naming naipasok nga
ang agricultural lands ngunit tadtad na tadtad naman ng mga loopholes.
Itong
Article on National Economy and Patrimony ay ganoon din. Ito ang aming
ipinakikipaglaban. Ang sabi ninyo: Jimmy, hindi ba matagal na naming
ibinigay sa
inyo? Dapat sanay pinag-aralan na ninyo. Ngunit tanggapin naman sana
ninyong hindi pa dapat pag-usapan ang Article on National Economy and
Patrimony. Ang
dapat pag-usapan ay tungkol sa local governments. Ibinibigay nga ninyo sa
amin ang proposal sa Artikulong nabanggit pero tinatalakay natin noon ang
Article
on Social Justice, na pinag-aralan din namin. Ang ibig ba ninyong sabihin,
kapag ibinigay ang proposal sa National Economy and Patrimony, tututukan
na
namin kaagad iyon at kalilimutan na namin ang Social Justice? Tanggapin
nating nagmamadali tayo sa ating gawain; halos hindi na natin ito mabasa.
Ngunit
ang Article on National Economy ay totoong napakahalaga at dapat pagaralan sapagkat 55 milyong Pilipino ang umaasa sa atin dito. Pero ang sinabi
ni
Commissioner Ople na ang perpetual infancy ay para na ring treason ay
lubhang nakasakit sa akin. Gusto ko lang sabihin kung paano natin inaayos
itong
ating Saligang Batas. Ayon sa Section 4 ng Article on National Economy and
Patrimony:
The President with the concurrence of two-thirds vote of the National
Assembly, by special law, shall provide the terms and conditions under which
a
foreign-owned corporation may enter into agreements with the government
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,

development, and utilization of natural resources.
Nawala na ang pariralang two-thirds vote. Ano ang tinanggap ninyong
amendment ni Commissioner Jamir tungkol sa concurrence of Congress o
National
Assembly? Ano ang ginagawa ninyo sa ating Saligang Batas? Nakapagtataka,
ang ipinasok ni Commissioner Felicitas Aquino ay ito: THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT
FILIPINO ENTERPRISES FROM FOREIGN CONTROL AND COMPETITION.
Pumayag ba kayo? Kapag ang interest ng mga multinationals ang ilalagay,
payag agad kayo, ngunit
kapag interest ng mga Pilipino, hindi kayo pumapayag.
THE PRESIDENT: May we request our guests in the gallery to please refrain
from making any disturbance or observation?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Romulo is asking for recognition.
MR. ROMULO: May the Committee be allowed to complete its reaction,
Madam President?
MR. ROMULO: This is very brief, Madam President.
Commissioner Sarmiento, whom I respect greatly, referred to the sponsorship
speech of a distinguished colleague, former Speaker Laurel, and I just wish to
expand on that reference because that was a very historic event. Under the
leadership of former Speaker Laurel, and this was in 1969, for the first time,
both Houses of Congress passed a joint resolution, entitled: Joint Resolution
Establishing Basic Policies To Achieve Economic Development And Attain
Social Justice.
Let me read relevant portions from that resolution of Congress in 1969
which, if the body will notice, reflect the basic concepts of our Section 1. This
is
now a direct quote:
Within the context of what is socially desirable, every effort shall be exerted
to persuade and encourage private capital to invest in enterprises that can
operate with maximum efficiency in providing quality goods and services
using domestic raw materials at competitive prices to the national and

foreign
markets.
Does that not harken to Section 1 and the Ople amendment?
The second sentence of that paragraph of Joint Resolution No. 2 states and I
quote:
However, in their infant stages, (may I repeat that in their infant stages)
products of domestic industries and agricultural enterprises shall be given
competitive advantages in the national market through direct measures, and
foreign markets for those products and others that can be produced at
competitive cost shall be fully explored and developed.
Again, that reflects the Committees position.
Finally, Madam President, with regard to agricultural development and
industry, may I quote again from that Joint Resolution No. 2 which was
passed in
1969. There are really very few things new under the sun:
The government shall actively plan and promote the development of the
agricultural sector in harmony with the industrial sector in order to achieve
increased agricultural productivity and national self-sufficiency in the basic
staples.
Does that not also reflect parts of Section 1? That is all I wish to say, Madam
President.
MR. VILLEGAS: We have the next committee member to speak.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, this is in response to the comments
made by Commissioner Romulo. I will be very brief.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Romulo adverted to Joint Resolution No. 2,
which is the Magna Carta of Social Justice and Economic Freedom. But in my
brief
explanation this morning, what I cited was the sponsorship speech of
Commissioner Laurel, not Joint Resolution No. 2. In that speech, he
advocated
protectionism and industrialization.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I fully agree with Commissioner Sarmiento. I

did not wish to imply that he was quoting from Joint Resolution No. 2 but
precisely, the sponsorship speech of Speaker Laurel was endorsing Joint
Resolution No. 2.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Monsod would like to speak, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to put on record certain quotations from the study
called Economic Recovery and Long-Run Growth Agenda for Reforms which
has been
approved by the government. I would like this body to note that among the
authors of this study are economists Romeo Bautista, whose name was
mentioned
earlier this morning, and Mahar Mangahas, who cooperated and worked with
us on the Article on Social Justice that has been recently approved. The latter
has a passionate sentiment for social justice and agrarian reform. According
to him, his view is that equity is important but, as we will note from this
book, there is also a need for efficiency. May I read from this some
quotations:
Agriculture and Rural Development Despite the rapid growth of
agricultural output in the 1970s, incomes of the rural population had been
falling behind
and by the early 1980s, production of major crops has stagnated. The ruralurban income ratio has declined from 75 percent to 50 percent in the 1980s
and
the prices of agricultural products have all dropped.
The heart of the efficiency problem in agriculture and overall income
distribution are both in the macroeconomic and agricultural policies.
In the area of macroeconomic policies, the industrial protection system has
not only raised prices of manufactured goods to agriculture, but has also
reduced the peso prices of exportable agricultural crops by defending a lower
value of foreign exchange.
Likewise, exchange rate policy itself has, in the past, failed to make the
necessary adjustments to avoid prolonged overvaluation of the peso
culminating
in a balance of payments crisis and the need for sudden devaluation. This
failure has further served to keep agricultural prices low over long periods of
time. At the same time excessively capital-intensive character of industrial
growth has meant an inadequate rate of labor absorption, depressing rural

wages.
May I also just continue here on Industrial Policy with the Chairs indulgence?
One of the requirements of our proposed development strategy is a
liberalized trade regime that would foster competition and provide a set of
market prices
closely reflecting social opportunity costs and benefits. That kind of
environment has eluded us through most of the postwar period, causing the
countrys
scarce resources to be allocated inefficiently and constraining the growth of
national income and foreign trade. The price distortions created by the past
trade exchange rate policies also discriminated heavily against agriculture in
favor of manufacturing. But within the manufacturing sector, the protection
structure strongly favored import substitution over export production as well
as finished consumer goods over intermediate and capital goods.
There are two themes to which our recommendations for trade liberalization
are indicated. One is the significant reduction of trade taxes and the
complete
elimination of quantitative restrictions. The second relates to the adoption of
a flexible exchange rate policy that will maintain a realistic valuation of
the peso. The principal objective of our suggested policy measure is to make
the incentive structure as neutral as possible.
Concerning industrial policy, we are cognizant of the efforts to offset the
price distortions due to trade and exchange rate policy by protection through
BOI-administered fiscal and other incentives. There is a high degree of
selectivity, however, in the granting of such incentives.
A very prominent historical feature of our economy is the recurrence of
balance of payments crisis every ten years. We had one in 1949, another in
1960,
another in 1970 and one in 1983 that is still with us. Unless one breaks the
cycle, the late 1990s is likely to usher once more a familiar visitor. With it
will have been half a century of mediocrity in the countrys economic
performance.
Although this phenomenon could be partly attributed to external shocks,
much of the blame could be laid squarely on our own trade and domestic
policies,
particularly our effort to defend a fixed exchange rate until it is no longer
possible to borrow; and our continuing policy of protection via tariffs and
import controls. We have a system of protection which rewards inefficient
import substitutes (made profitable only by import and tariff restrictions) and
generally penalizes exports and efficient import substitutes. As a result, in

the 1980s, further import substitution has become more and more costly and
difficult to achieve, while much of the potential for export growth has
remained unrealized.
What most people overlook is that protecting one sector means penalizing
another. Protecting PICOP by restricting paper imports means that education
for
our children will be costlier and our export publishing industry dies. It also
means the rapid exploitation of our forests. The idea that we, therefore,
have to produce our own steel means that consumers pay more for
downstream product lines which, being high in cost, cannot be sold abroad.
The main
instrument of protection to date is the battery of quantitative restrictions on
imports either through outright banning or quantity ceilings.
In view of the above, we propose the removal of all quantitative restrictions
on imports including licensing. We endorse the original intent of the
Ministry of Trade and Industry of liberalization of quantitative restrictions.
They should be removed in one years time.
There are many more on this paper which I would like to endorse to my
colleagues to read because it is a very disciplined way of studying this issue.
But I
would like also to close that I have talked to some of the experts in the more
efficient industries, one of whom is Dante Santos of Philacor. Philacor has
a very good record of labor relations. Mr. Dante Santos is for import
liberalization. He said it is difficult, but it forced him to be efficient and he is
exporting.
Thank you.
MR. BENNAGEN: I speak in support of the motion to reconsider the approval
of Section 1. I think part of the confusion has something to do with the
unequal
grasp of the issues and the unequal access to information. That is expected,
of course, from a group as diverse as the Commission because even in the
social science disciplines, economics is increasingly becoming unreachable
by the other social scientists. There are pros and cons to all views, and over
the weekend, I saw another view from a farmer Dean of the School of
Economics which I think supports a selective approach to protectionism but
also links
up the liberalization move to the policies of the World Bank and the IMF. So,
with the Chairs indulgence, let me read this article by former Dean of the
UP School of Economics, Amado A. Castro. It is entitled: IMF Theology Part II:
At the Bretton Woods Conference in July 1944, the Allies met to plan the
post-World War II economic order. They agreed to set up three organizations:
the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Re-construction
and Development (World Bank) and the Inter-national Trade Organization
(ITO).
By design, there was to be specialization among the three institutions: the
IMF was to take care of monetary matters and short-term finance; the World
Bank
would concentrate on the rehabilitation of the war-torn industrial nations
mainly in Europe, and the long-term economic development of
underdeveloped
countries. The ITO was to assure orderly international trade.
The World Bank was established in 1946; the IMF, in 1947. The ITO was
slated to be organized at the Havana Conference in 1947. The spokesmen for
the
underdeveloped countries, prominent among them the late Central Bank
Governor Miguel Cuaderno, denounced the proposed ITO as a device being
foisted by the
advanced nations to preserve the status quo of world trading. The ITO was
scuttled.
Today, however, by a strange twist, the IMF is carrying on a large part of the
ITOs original mission to liberalize world trade. Under the guise of
promoting sound national currencies, the IMF tackles balance of payments
problems which cause foreign exchange and currency difficulties. And one of
its
theologies is that free trade leads to economic efficiency and sound balance
of payments situations.
In principle, free trade is, indeed, as Adam Smith pointed out in 1776, the
economists ideal. By giving full play to competition, free trade leads to
international division of labor and therefore economic efficiency. National
economies should become stronger for it. But as often happens, between the
theoretical ideal and the real world, many factors come into play which can
justify departures from the ideal.
One of the justifications for a paced trade liberalization program is infant
industry and even infant economy protection. A free trade regime freezes the
trade situation. It gives an advantage to those industries which are already
established. The successful industrialization of Germany, Japan and other

latecomer countries and now Korea and Taiwan which protected their
budding industries demonstrate that up to a point, infant industry and infant
economy
protection have historical validity.
Furthermore, long-run solutions inevitably involve short-run adjustment
difficulties for sectors adversely affected. These should be sorted out before
full
trade liberalization can take place. Finally, a depression is a poor time to
preach free trade; adjustment is less painful in an expansionary economy.
And to conclude, the last paragraph is a sober statement:
These and other reasons argue for intelligent and considerate, not to
mention compassionate, application of trade liberalization prescriptions.
MR. VILLEGAS: I thank the Commissioner very much.
Madam President, I just would like to respond to that.
I am very glad that Commissioner Bennagen read the paper of former Dean
Castro, because it is really fully supportive of the second paragraph of
Section 1.
We are definitely in favor of selective protection especially as regards infant
industries and against all dumping and other unfair trade practices. So, it
is, indeed, a support of the section.
MR. BENNAGEN: For a little while. I think I brought that out because there
seems to be a trend towards reducing the issue into black and white. In the
debate, mention was made of the fact that there has to be both tariff and
nontariff barriers with respect to competition.
MR. VILLEGAS: Which we fully support.
MR. BENNAGEN: This is just a point of clarification. May I ask either
Commissioner Villacorta or Commissioner Sarmiento.
Is it the understanding that domestic industries would include also foreign
companies located in the Philippines?
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes. That is why I disagreed with some of our colleagues
that protectionism will necessarily kill foreign investment.

MR. VILLACORTA: As a matter of fact, it will have the effect of protecting
foreign investment in the Philippines.
MR. BENNAGEN: In other words, we are saying that we are not closing the
doors completely to foreign participation.
MR. VILLACORTA: We are not closing the door to foreign participation.
MR. MONSOD: We just want to clarify that in the sentence of the second
paragraph we do not want to protect multinationals; we want to protect
Filipino
enterprises.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, but what I am saying is that some of our colleagues
are implying that the protection against foreign competition would ban
importation
and foreign investment. That is the impression being given.
MR. MONSOD: Then maybe we should read again the second paragraph.
MR. VILLACORTA: We have read it very carefully, and the interpretation is
very clear to us.
But I would just like to reply to Commissioners Villegas and Ople.
First of all, I would like to ask Commissioner Villegas if he knows of any
protected industry in the Philippines that has lower prices compared to those
prices offered by foreign producers. In other words, would the Commissioner
be able to cite some cases of protected industries which have lower prices
compared to imported goods?
MR. VILLEGAS: Precisely they are protected because they do not have lower
prices. I think it is a contradiction in terms. They were looking for protected
industries that have lower prices.
MR. VILLACORTA: Are there protected industries right now in the Philippines?
Could the Commissioner enlighten us and give us examples of protected
industries?
MR. VILLEGAS: Of course, FILSYN was mentioned as one of them, all
industries in which there are still quotas in our list of restrictions of import,
and all
tire industries with 30 to 50 percent tariff rates
MR. VILLACORTA: What about the case of rice? Would the price of rice be
higher or lower compared to rice that we would have imported?
MR. MONSOD: I am glad the Commissioner raised that point because the
liberalization program does not include rice and corn.
MR. VILLACORTA: I raise this question because the Honorable Villegas always
cited the textile industry and the implications of its protection on the
American consumers, as if to say that anything that serves to protect certain
local industries would necessarily entail higher prices for the consumers and
would be bad for the economy, unless Commissioner Villegas would want us
to import from Thailand and the United States where the price of rice would
be
much cheaper for our rice eaters.
MR. VILLEGAS: Precisely, there are situations like that in the rice industry
where whatever happens, we protect it. So that is a possible situation.
MR. VILLACORTA: If the Commissioner can protect the rice-producing
industry, why can we not extend the same protection to all other industries?
MR. MONSOD: If we do that, then where will we get our foreign exchange in
order to finance our imports? Japan has always been cited as providing very
high
protection to its agriculture but forcing its industry to be competitive.
On the question of import liberalization, I want to mention also that products
for national security, health, and safety are not included in the import
liberalization.
MR. VILLACORTA: If that is the intendment and contemplation of the
Committee with respect to the idea of protection against foreign competition,
can that
not just be placed on the record? Can we not then just remove the term
unfair because it is very clear. . .
MR. MONSOD: It is the reverse. It is already on record five, six, or seven
times that dumping constitutes unfair competition; that we have to protect
our
infant industries; that in order to recover from recession, we should allow
industries temporary relief until they can go back to normal levels. It is very
clear on record.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I am disturbed by the double standard

applied to the insertion of certain words in the Constitution. It seems that on
many
occasions when we are clear about the intention of a certain provision, many
of our colleagues insist on not putting that word because anyway the
contemplation and intendment are supposed to be clearly registered in the
record of the deliberations. On the other hand, it seems that when it works
against their favor, then they insist on the insertion of a certain word. I just
would like to put on record that I see this as a very transparent attempt
at legal necromancy. Madam President, I would like also to respond to the
Honorable Ople. During the caucus and in the last session we had last
Saturday,
and consistent with the ethics of parliamentarism, I thought we were not
going to impute motives on the actions and motions of our colleagues. And
for that
reason, I was constrained to make an apology for the sake of the unity and
integrity of this Commission.
The Honorable Ople, whose eloquence we neophytes cannot match, in his
speech imputes ulterior motives to us, and accuses us of succumbing to
undue pressure
and influence coming from an outside bloc.
First of all, what is so wrong with this coalition? Why is it being presented in
this body as if it were a monster, as if it were a group of subversives
and hotheads? I have just named the signatories of that position paper, who
included respectable people such as Justice J.B.L. Reyes and others. What is
particularly wrong with its composition? What is fundamentally defective
about their position? If we can quote from Londoners who wrote The
Economist, if
we can quote from Koreans, then what is wrong with quoting from the
position paper of a coalition composed of our own countrymen, from among
the ranks of
businessmen, laborers, farmers, professionals and others? Just because of a
seemingly unfortunate incident last Friday, the coalition is being projected as
if it is such an objectionable organization.
And, moreover, I would like to mention to the Honorable Ople something that
perhaps the Commissioner is not aware of. I did not exercise my right to vote
when Section 1 was voted upon, precisely because I did not think that I could
vote intelligently on the subject inasmuch as only one side was presented. If
the Honorable Ople would remember, in the caucus that we had that
noontime, I precisely raised certain questions to the Committee. At that time,
I had not
met any member of the coalition. It is true that in the afternoon we consulted
certain economist-members of that coalition, which is perfectly legitimate

because we are not economists.
So, I deplore this post hoc ergo propter hoc policy.
MR. VILLACORTA: Just because one action preceded another action does not
imply that there is necessarily a causal relationship between these two
events.
MR. OPLE: I appreciate the candor and vigor with which Commissioner
Villacorta made his comment, by way of reply to some points I had made
earlier. I do
not think that I was in any manner degrading the motives of those who are
seeking a motion for reconsideration now. I spoke of certain facts; that on
Friday, as the records will show, there was a unanimous vote. I was not
aware that some Members of the Commission did not participate in that
voting and we
have to go by the official record of the Constitutional Commission. I have no
quarrel with the coalition of business leaders, labor leaders and sectoral
leaders that have been constituted in order to make proposals to the
Constitutional Commission. There are so many other groups that in the
exercise of
their civic duty have made proposals to the Constitutional Commission, but I
must admit that upon reading the Philippine Daily Inquirer issue of Saturday,
August 16, page 1, I thought that the statement that was attributed to Mr.
Lichauco constituted an offense an the entire Commission.
Madam President, may I read just two paragraphs of this news article under
the by-line of Marlen Ronquillo:
A broad coalition of local industrialists, peasants, workers and professionals
threatened yesterday to campaign for the repudiation of the Charter now
being drafted because of an anti-Filipino economic policy unanimously
passed by the Constitutional Commission.
It is nothing but pure and simple treason, said economist Alejandro
Lichauco, a member of the coalition, in reaction to paragraph 2, Section 1 of
the
I do not think that I should impose upon the Commission by reading the rest
of this news story, but if I said some fairly strong words to which I am not
accustomed on this floor, I hope everybody will understand it, in the light of
my own reaction as a Member of this Commission, to this accusation of
treason against all of us. I did not seek a remedy of reparation for this. I
reserve that for the future, Madam President, but I just wanted to put my
own
comment in a proper light. I did not accuse anyone in this Commission of
lacking fidelity to his duty, but we will have to admit that the provocation
was
very great in this quotation which was never denied and, in effect, that I was
speaking not only for myself but for the many Members of the Commission
when
I articulated that protest.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter has been sufficiently explained, and I would like
to inquire from the Floor Leader if the body is ready to vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: We would like to have the vote, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: The body will take a vote now.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I just have two minutes in support of the
motion for reconsideration. I must begin by saying that I myself am not in
favor
of absolute protectionism. I have listened carefully to all the speakers, and
what I perceive is that there is no absolute irreconcilability in what they
are saying. But what I do perceive is that there are differences in the reading
of the second paragraph of Section 1, and I think that we should make an
effort to remove these differences in reading. There are references to the
records. I think we should make an effort to see if we can improve the
language
of paragraph 2 so that it can reflect more accurately what are contained in
the record. So in asking for a reconsideration, I am quite aware of that
hyperbolic statement referred to in the Daily Inquirer. But I think that for the
sake of clarifying this very important point, we should be able to
transcend such hyperboles and face this as dispassionately and as cooly as
possible because it is quite clear that we have here men of goodwill and
intelligence who read the paragraph differently. I think we should make an

effort to see if we can do something about it because this paragraph will be
used in the future by legislators and by jurists. If we can help lessen their
work by clarifying it some more now, then I believe we will be doing a
service to our nation.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, the Committee would like a vote now.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. We will proceed to vote on this particular matter.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President.
MR. BROCKA: May I request a nominal voting.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, under our Rules, Section 39 has this provision:
. . . Nominal voting on questions not connected with constitutional proposals
or the text of the Constitution itself shall not be allowed, except when it
involves the discipline of a Member
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I think this matter involves a
constitutional proposal. Therefore, the motion for nominal voting is proper. I
will object
to the manifestation of Commissioner Jamir.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee will accept nominal voting just to finish this
matter.
NOMINAL VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair rules that nominal voting is in order. So, the issue
before the body is whether or not to reconsider the decision of the
Commission handed down last Friday approving Section 1, as amended, of
the proposed Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. ROMULO: This requires a little clarification. The motion before us is a

motion for reconsideration. Therefore, if we vote yes, we are voting to grant
the motion for reconsideration; if we vote no, we are voting not to grant the
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair precisely was about to state that. If we vote yes,
naturally, we want to reconsider the approval of Section 1; and if we vote no,
then we uphold the decision of the Commission effected last Fridays.
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on the motion for reconsideration
and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
Abubakar
No
Bacani
No
Alonto
No
Bengzon
No
Aquino
Bennagen
Azcuna
Yes
MR. BENNAGEN: I am in favor of the motion for reconsideration. Let me

explain very briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER BENNAGEN EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. BENNAGEN: As indicated in my earlier manifestation, I think there is still
some confusion as to the clarification of the key terms, and I feel that a
reconsideration will open the avenue for greater clarity so that future
legislators will truly understand that the intent of the Commission is for a
national economy that truly serves the interest of the Filipinos.
Bernas
Yes
Calderon
Rosario Braid
Yes
Castro de
Brocka
Yes
No
COMMISSIONER DE CASTRO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. DE CASTRO: My vote is no.
We have discussed Section 1 in the caucus and in the session hall for two
days. I am not an economist but I understand the whole thing through the
explanations of the members of the Committee, the Members of this
Commission and those who seek for reconsideration. In fact, I have an
amendment to
emphasize more the Filipino First policy. Hence, I vote no.
Colayco
No
Gascon
Concepcion
No
Guingona
Davide
Yes
Jamir
Foz
Yes
Laurel
Garcia
Yes
Lerum
Yes
No
COMMISSIONER LERUM EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. LERUM: Madam President, I am voting for the reconsideration of the
motion because I believe that there is still a middle ground between those
who are
against this proposal and those who are in favor.

Maambong
No
Reyes de los
No
Monsod
No
Rigos
No
Natividad
Rodrigo
No
Nieva
Abstain
Romulo
Nolledo
Yes
Rosales
Ople
No
Sarmiento
Yes
Padilla
No
Suarez
Yes
Quesada
Yes
Sumulong
No
Rama
No
Tadeo
Yes
Regalado
No
Tan
No
COMMISSIONER TAN EXPLAINS HER VOTE

SR. TAN: I vote yes.
I feel we are becoming hysterical over the lobbying of the coalition group. If
the members of this coalition group felt fiercely about their stand, perhaps
they have a good reason to feel impassioned. While their manner was
perhaps not parliamentary, I never felt threatened by this group and
certainly they
were nothing compared to the right to life group which carried me
physically to the floor to listen to their program. Why should we look at a
vote for
reconsideration as a weakness just because we might be accused of treason?

Has not Marcos threatened us for at least twenty years not only of treason
but
subversion, sedition and even death, but we never succumbed? Could we not
change our minds because we learned something we did not know before?
Only a fool
does not change his mind. Can we not change our minds because what we
learned in economic language confirmed what our farmers and workers have
been crying
out for twenty years? How quickly we forget.
Tingson
No
Villacorta
Treas
No
Villegas
Uka
No
Yes
COMMISSIONER VILLEGAS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. VILLEGAS: I vote no because I believe that there is no imperfection in the
language that cannot be remedied by the Committee on Style.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Is Madam President voting?
THE PRESIDENT: No, unless there is a tie.
SECOND ROLL CALL
Aquino
Natividad
Guingona
Rosales
Laurel
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with due respect to Madam President,
may we know her vote on this issue?
THE PRESIDENT: I was just saying I will vote in case there is a tie. If the body
needs my vote, I can give it. Does the Commission desire that I give my
vote?
My vote is no, because I believe that even with this provision of Section 1 in
this Constitution, it does not deprive our government, whether through
executive or legislative action, to undertake measures that will Protect
Filipino enterprises.
The results show 17 votes in favor of the motion for reconsideration, 25
against, and 1 abstention; so the motion for reconsideration is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the suspension of the session until
two-thirty this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for lunch until two-thirty this
afternoon.
It was 12:51 p.m.
Continuation
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we consider Proposed Resolution

No. 470 on the Article on Local Governments.
motion is approved.
So the body will proceed to continue its deliberations on the proposed Article
May we request the honorable Chairman and members of the Committee to
please occupy the front table: Commissioners Nolledo, Alonto, Bennagen,
Calderon,
Tingson, Rosales, de Castro, Regalado, Rigos, Jamir and Ople.
MR. NOLLEDO: In our last session, we deferred action on Section 3 of
Resolution No. 470 which is a consolidation of Committee Report Nos. 21 and
25.
Commissioner Maambong now seeks to amend Section 3 of the said
resolution.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I be given a few minutes? It is still
being reproduced so that all the Members will have copies of my
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So, can we proceed to the next?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Commissioner Rama, the Floor Leader, is
recommending to the body that we consider immediately the topic on
autonomous
regions. So if there is no objection on the part of any Member of the
Commission, the Committee has no objection to the request of Commissioner
Rama.
MR. PADILLA: Before we take up the autonomous regions, will the Committee
consider a short section after Section 2 to read as follows: THE TERRITORIAL
AND
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SHALL
CONTINUE TO ENJOY LOCAL AUTONOMY?
The reason I propose this simple section is that there is no specific statement
that all these local government units, the provinces, cities and
municipalities, are also entitled to local autonomy. I suppose some would say
that it is taken for granted or that it is conceded, but there is no clear
statement or express statement that these political units should continue to
enjoy local autonomy.
When we go to the autonomous regions, they would have local autonomy,
but it does not mean that only the two autonomous regions, Muslim
Mindanao and
Cordillera, will have local autonomy. All the other provinces, cities and
municipalities as political units will also enjoy local autonomy.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think that amendment is unnecessary in the light of the
provision in the report of the Committee on Transitory Provisions that all
presidential decrees, executive orders, et cetera, shall continue to exist until
repealed or amended by the regular Congress. The Local Government Code,
which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, is deemed included under that provision.
That is aside from the fact that in the Commissioners absence, Section 2,
line
13, was amended by Commissioners Monsod and Davide where they added
the words instituted through a system of decentralization.
In view of these reasons, the Committee regrets that it cannot accept the
amendment.
MR. PADILLA: The Transitory Provisions has reference to existing laws,
particularly presidential decrees, executive orders, letters of instructions.
MR. NOLLEDO: Including Batas Pambansa.
MR. PADILLA: Yes. As a matter of fact, I am not very much in favor of a
provision that will make operative and continuously enforce these unilateral
decrees during the Marcos regime. In some instances, I tried to make a
distinction between a Batas or a Republic Act or a Commonwealth Act,
passed by the
Legislative Assembly and approved by the President, and these presidential
decrees, executive orders and letters of instructions which were issued by
the
deposed President. In the exercise of Amendment No. 6, the latter were all
unilateral acts. The Local Government Code is a Batas Pambansa. So the
local
autonomy that is enjoyed by our political units, which is decentralization of
central authority and which is recognized in the Local Government Code and,
I
suppose, in many other provisions of law, should not depend upon the
Transitory Provisions.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will Commissioner Padilla yield to a question?
MR. PADILLA: Gladly.
I want to know more precisely the intention behind the proposal for a new
section. Does the Commissioner think of creating a new section right in the
forefront of this Article on Local Governments which is in the nature of a
philosophical statement to the effect that all local governments shall enjoy
autonomy?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, not only philosophical; it is actually the situation and
perhaps we can even increase the local autonomy of these political units: the
provinces, cities and municipalities.
We speak of the autonomous regions of Muslim Mindanao and Cordillera, well
and good. But with regard to the political units, I suppose it is taken for
granted that they also exercise local autonomy. There is no specific
statement in the committee report.
MR. OPLE: In other words, Madam President, although the Committee insists
that the whole Article operationalizes the concept of decentralization of
powers
and local autonomy for all, the Commissioner would like to make this a more
explicit statement in one separate section, maybe ahead of the other
sections?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, I was suggesting after Section 2.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I think Commissioner Ople has a
misapprehension of the recommended provision because there is the word
continue. As
Chairman of the Committee, may I be allowed to explain further. The
recommended provision reads: THE TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS UNDER THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SHALL CONTINUE TO ENJOY LOCAL AUTONOMY
MR. PADILLA: We can eliminate the words CONTINUE TO, if that will be one
of the Commissioners objections. Hence the phrase will read: SHALL ENJOY
LOCAL
AUTONOMY.
MR. OPLE: Yes, the phrase SHALL ENJOY LOCAL AUTONOMY will reflect the
intent of the proponent much better, since to merely continue an existing
policy
for local autonomy might be inconsistent with the spirit of this new Article
which is for increasing local autonomy.
MR. PADILLA: I agree.
MR. OPLE: So if that is the intent of Commissioner Padilla, I think that
statement will not be superfluous. It can elevate to a statement of
philosophy the
intent of the whole article for decentralizing governmental powers in favor of
the local units. So if the Commissioner can formulate that amendment, I
would like to express my support for it, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: As I stated earlier, I was suggesting to add after Section 2 a
separate section which will read as follows: THE TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SHALL ENJOY LOCAL
AUTONOMY.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, as the last statement of the Committee,
the Monsod-Davide amendment on line 13, by the use of the words
instituted through a
system of decentralization, would render the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Padilla a superfluity.
THE PRESIDENT: Chairman Nolledo will state that particular amendment
being referred to.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Monsod-Davide amendment is in Section 2, line 13. I will
read a portion of Section 2, including those amended portions: The
Congress
shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a
system of
decentralization . . . And for us to state here that THE TERRITORIAL AND
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS SHALL ENJOY LOCAL AUTONOMY would seem to be
a
superfluity.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Padilla say?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, while we say that local autonomy is

essentially decentralization of the governments central powers and
authority, it is
clearer to emphasize local autonomy rather than mere decentralization,
especially because in the subsequent portions of this Article, we are talking
of
autonomous regions. It might give the wrong impression that only these two
autonomous regions of Muslim Mindanao and Cordillera enjoy local
autonomy.
I believe it is important to stress also that all these political units such as the
provinces, cities and municipalities should enjoy local autonomy.
MR. DAVIDE: May I offer an amendment to the amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: After the word decentralization as earlier read by the
Chairman, add the following words: AND LOCAL AUTONOMY, so it will now
read
instituted through a system of decentralization AND LOCAL AUTONOMY.
THE PRESIDENT: So there will be no need for a new section?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, there is no need for a new section.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Padilla say? Is that satisfactory?
MR. PADILLA: I believe that a very simple statement as I proposed would be
better. It will be clearer. And perhaps it can even be after Section 1 instead
of Section 2.
MR. NOLLEDO: We would like to submit the question to the floor, Madam
President.
MR. PADILLA: Maybe we do not have to mention the Local Government Code,
because we are contemplating not only the present autonomy being
enjoyed, but also
some more or increasing local autonomy. So, my proposal would read, and I
suggest that it be placed after Section 1: THE TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS SHALL ENJOY LOCAL AUTONOMY.
VOTING
Padilla will please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment will please raise their hand. (No Member
raised his hand.)
The results show 29 votes in favor, none against and no abstention; the
MR. NOLLEDO: So, it will now be Section 3, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: It is placed before Section 3; hence it would be numbered Section
2.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we agree to make it Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the next proponent?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Maambong has an amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Maambongs amendment will be on Section 4
now. Section 3 has become Section 4, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have copies now?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong may proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: The amendments which are being proposed by this
Representation, Commissioners Bengzon, Ople, Natividad, de los Reyes and
Colayco in Section
3, which is now Section 4, consist of the following: Before the sentence,
insert the word EXISTING, then delete the first part of the sentence which
reads:
The local government code may provide that; then after the word cities,
delete the word as and substitute the words AND THOSE; and after the
word
standards, insert the phrase ESTABLISHED BY LAW.
In the second sentence, delete the words a city and insert COMPONENT
CITIES; then after the word within, substitute the article A for the word
the;
after the words vote for, delete the; after the word officials, insert a
comma (,) and the phrase UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE
OTHERWISE; and after that, insert a new sentence which is indicated in our
formulation. The whole Section 4 would now read: EXISTING highly
urbanized
cities, AND THOSE determined by reasonable standards ESTABLISHED BY
LAW, shall be independent of the province. However, the voters of
COMPONENT CITIES
within A province shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective
provincial officials, UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE
OTHERWISE.
The second paragraph, which is a new one, reads: THE ELECTORATE OF
HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES SHALL NOT VOTE IN THE ELECTION FOR
PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS OF THE
PROVINCE IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO
COMPONENT CITY SHALL BE DECLARED OR BE ENTITLED TO A HIGHLY
URBANIZED CITY STATUS WITHIN NINETY
DAYS PRIOR TO ANY ELECTION.
We respectfully present this to the Committee, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will this be Section 4?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Will Commissioner Maambong yield to just one question? I
just want to be enlightened as to the distinction between highly urbanized
cities
and component cities. Will the Commissioner please tell me the precise
distinction between the two?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. The present Local Government Code, specifically under
Section 165 thereof, classifies cities into component or highly urbanized.
Section
165 provides:
Cities Classified. A city may either be component or highly urbanized.
Highly urbanized cities, as hereinafter provided, shall be independent of the
province.
I understand that as of this moment, there are some 13 highly urbanized
cities in the whole country. And in highly urbanized cities so organized, their
voters are not allowed to vote in the election of provincial officials in the
province where the city is situated. This question was raised before the
Supreme Court in the case of Ceniza vs. COMELEC . The position of the
petitioner was that the voters of highly urbanized cities should be allowed to
vote
for their elective provincial officials otherwise this will violate the principle of
republicanism. But in resolving the issue, the Supreme Court said that
whether the prohibition imposed on voters of highly urbanized cities from
voting in provincial elections subverts the principle of republicanism by
depriving them of the right to participate in governmental exercise of
suffrage, still there is no violation of the principle because provinces have no
jurisdiction over highly urbanized cities. It is for this reason that the
configuration which we, together with Commissioner Bengzon and others,
are
presenting is to the effect that voters of highly urbanized cities should not be
allowed to vote for the election of provincial officials.
BISHOP BACANI: May I know who determines that a particular city will be
classified as a highly urbanized city or just as a component city? Is it the
charter itself of the city or is it through some other legislative enactment?
MR. MAAMBONG: There are criteria specifically indicated in the Local
Government Code. It is indicated in Section 167, and I will read so that it will
be
very clear:
Criteria for elevation of a component city to a highly urbanized city A
component city may become a highly urbanized city if it meets the criteria
specified in the preceding section.
Section 166 says:
Highly Urbanized Cities.
(1) Cities with a minimum population of 150,000 as certified by the National
Census and Statistics Office, and with the latest annual income of at least
P30 million as certified by the Minister of Finance, shall be classified as highly
urbanized cities.
(2) Cities which do not meet the above requirements shall be considered
component cities of the province in which they are geographically located. If
the
component city is located within the boundaries of two or more provinces,
said city shall be considered a component of the province of which it used to
be
a municipality.
BISHOP BACANI: So a component city can become automatically a highly

urbanized city once it reaches a certain population and income level?
MR. MAAMBONG: Under the Local Government Code, it is not automatic. The
city itself has to apply. Under the present system now the application will go
through a process through the Ministry of Local Government.
MR. TREAS: Madam President, may I ask a few questions?
MR. TREAS: What is the difference between a highly urbanized city and a
component city?
MR. MAAMBONG: As far as juridical personality is concerned, there is actually
not much difference because as we all knows, all cities have their own
charters which grant rights to them, such as the right to sue and be sued and
so on. But the main difference in classification is actually the population
level and the income level. To my mind, that is the main difference between
the component and highly urbanized cities.
MR. TREAS: So, for practical purposes, there is no difference between a
highly urbanized city and a component city according to the Commissioner,
except
the population and income?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. TREAS: Is there any benefit when a city becomes highly urbanized as
contradistinguished from a component city?
MR. MAAMBONG: There is a difference because under the present
configuration of our laws, if the city is a component city and we apply the
provisions of the
Local Government Code, there is a supervisory control of the province over
component cities. Let us take, as an example, an ordinary municipality. All
ordinances of a municipality or a component city will have to be approved by
the province. So, in effect, it is treated as if it is a mere municipality.
All ordinances go to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. That is as far as the
Local Government Code is concerned. Unfortunately, the provisions of the
Local
Government Code have not been fully implemented. The Chairman of the
Committee on Local Governments will note that the said provisions have not
been fully
implemented.
When I was a member of the Provincial Board of Cebu, we never approved
ordinances of component cities because at that moment, the provisions of
the Local
Government Code were not fully in effect.
MR. TREAS: Is it not a fact that most of the inhabitants especially in small
cities have properties or interest in the Province?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, that is true.
MR. TREAS: Following that admission, is it not more logical for the residents
of the city to be allowed to vote for the officials of the province?
MR. MAAMBONG: It would be a bit logical because if we allow the voters of
highly urbanized cities to vote for provincial officials, then it goes without
saying that residents of the province should be allowed to vote for the
election of city officials. It would not look good because at present, these
people
who are voters in the province are not really allowed to vote in the election
of city officials.
MR. TREAS: The Commissioner mentioned as a basis for his argument the
case of Ceniza vs. Commission on Elections; that is, Vol. 95, SCRA.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. TREAS: Is it not a fact that that case was decided on the basis of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 51 providing local elections for January of 1980?
MR. TREAS: Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that if in our present
Constitution we allow the residents of the city within a province to vote, it
will be contrary to this particular jurisprudence that the Commissioner has
cited?
MR. MAAMBONG: Let me put it this way. The Commissioner was referring to
Batas Pambansa Blg. 51. But the Commissioner should pay attention to the
provisions
of the 1973 Constitution itself.
MR. TREAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Article XI, Section 4 (1) of the 1973 Constitution provides:
. . . provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities
and municipalities with respect to component barrios, shall ensure that the
acts of their component units are within the scope of their assigned powers
and functions. Highly urbanized cities, as determined by standards
established
in the local government code, shall be independent of the province.
The keywords to the whole thing under the 1973 Constitution are the words
shall be independent of the province. This phrase has been repeated
several
times in Sections 15 and 165 of the Local Government Code to the extent
that this provision in the 1973 Constitution and the provisions of Sections 15
and
165 of the Local Government Code actually jibe with the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ceniza vs. COMELEC.
MR. TREAS: Precisely, those articles or provisions were mentioned, first,
because of the existence of Section 4 (1), Article XI of the 1973 Constitution
and Batas Pambansa Blg. 51. Am I right?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. TREAS: My last question is: Would it not be fair for the inhabitants or
residents of a city, especially a small city, to allow them to vote for the
province since they have already been voting for the provincial officials for
many years?
MR. MAAMBONG: In the case of highly urbanized cities, considering that the
province itself has no more supervisory jurisdiction over them or there is no
more umbilical cord connecting the highly urbanized city and the province, in
contradistinction to component cities, I feel that it is only logical that
the voters of a highly urbanized city should not be allowed to vote for the
election of provincial elective officials and vice-versa.
MR. TREAS: But a city, whether highly urbanized or not, has its own organic
act.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. All of them are covered by charters or special laws.
MR. TREAS: And those should govern.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, those should govern.
MR. TREAS: Thank you.

MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask a clarificatory question of the proponent?
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you. Commissioner Maambong stated that the highly
urbanized city shall be independent of the province. Is that right?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is not according to me; that is according to the 1973
Constitution as also provided in Section 15 and Section 165 of the Local
Government Code.
MR. DE CASTRO: Section 166 of the Local Government Code states that
urbanized cities with a minimum population of 150,000 shall be classified as
highly
urbanized cities.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, that is the minimum population requirement to qualify
as a highly urbanized city.
MR. DE CASTRO: If the urbanized city has less than 200,000 population, will it
be entitled to one Congressman?
MR. MAAMBONG: As far as the provisions of the Legislative Department are
concerned, the ratio is one representative for a 200,000 population of a
legislative district.
MR. DE CASTRO: So that a highly urbanized city with a population less than
200,000 shall not be entitled to one seat in the Lower House. Am I correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: From my understanding during the discussion of the
Committee on the Legislative, a highly urbanized city is entitled to one seat. I
just want
to correct that. According to the Chairman of the Committee on the
Legislative, even if it is a highly urbanized city, if it has a population below
the
requirement of 200,000, the city will not be entitled to one seat in the House
of Representatives.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, a highly urbanized city shall be part of the province in
the election for Congress if its population is less than 200,000. Is that
correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: I feel that it would have to be computed that way.

MR. DE CASTRO: And in Commissioner Maambongs proposed amendment,
the highly urbanized city shall be independent of the province in the election
of
provincial officials. Am I correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, because we have to distinguish between the election
of local officials and the election of national officials.
MR. DE CASTRO: It will then appear that a highly urbanized city with less
than 200,000 population shall be part of the province in the election for
Congressmen, whereas it is independent in the election for provincial
officials. Am I correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: I cannot argue against that statement. But please take note
that the standard of 150,000 population set by the Local Government Code
may be
subject to amendment in order that it will jibe with the present configuration
as proposed by the Committee on the Legislative.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, may I ask a question?
MR. JAMIR: According to this proposal of Commissioner Maambong, voters of
component cities may vote for elective provincial officials if their charters so
provide. Am I right?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. JAMIR: Now, supposing that at the time of the ratification of the
Constitution, the charter of a certain component city provides that each
voter can
elect provincial officials but subsequently the charter was amended, so as to
deprive them of the right to vote for elective provincial officials, can they
continue voting?
MR. MAAMBONG: A charter creating a city is, as we all know, like any
ordinary law.
MR. JAMIR: That is right.
MR. MAAMBONG: It can be modified, amended, repealed, and some powers

may be taken out except the basic powers of the city. Now if the charter will
be
amended by Congress, then that amendatory provision will have to prevail.
MR. JAMIR: I see. So, they will be deprived of the right to vote.
MR. MAAMBONG: They will be deprived of the right to vote. Why would the
proponent allow the legislature to deprive the voters of the right to vote in
provincial elections when component cities are under supervision of
provinces?
MR. MAAMBONG: I am not going to shed tears over the clause UNLESS
THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE OTHERWISE, because even before
the Gentleman can give
me his reason, I can already see the rationale there. I am even thinking that
voters of component cities be allowed to vote for elective provincial
officials even if their charter disallows them to vote at the present time. In
other words, the charter of that particular component city which does not
allow them to vote for elective provincial officials will have to be aligned to
be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: I wonder if the proponent would entertain an amendment to
drop that clause because the very concept of a component city is that the
city,
although it has its own juridical personality, is called component precisely
because it is still part of the province. And because it is still part of the
province, its inhabitants will have a say in the election of the officials of that
province. So, for as long as the city is merely a component city and not
a highly urbanized city yet, its inhabitants should not be deprived of the right
to vote for the provincial officials. So, my proposed amendment is to drop
the last clause.
MR. MAAMBONG: If the Gentlemans amendment to my amendment in
Section 3 is to delete the second sentence of the first paragraph starting with
the word
However up to the last word otherwise, I am willing to accept the
amendment.
FR. BERNAS: No, Madam President. My amendment would read as follows:
However, the voters of THE COMPONENT CITIES within the province shall
not be deprived
of their right to vote for elective provincial officials.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a moment. I mentioned earlier that I am not the only
proponent here; Commissioner Bengzon is also a proponent. With the
permission of
the Chair, I would like to turn over the lectern to Commissioner Bengzon.
FR. BERNAS: But we are talking here of component cities; we are not talking
about highly urbanized cities. Besides, the very concept of component cities
is
that they still form part of the province although juridically distinct, and are
still subject to the jurisdiction of the province. If they are subject to
the jurisdiction of the province, then they should have a say on who should
govern the province.
MR. BENGZON: No, but there are component cities which are independent of
the province by the very nature of their charter. They elect their own mayors
and
city officials, and the province does not really have anything to do with them.
But they are not qualified to become highly urbanized, precisely because
they are unable to meet the standards.
FR. BERNAS: Then I would have a quarrel with the word component,
because if they are totally independent of the province, then they are not
component
cities. Component really has reference to the relationship to the province.
MR. BENGZON: They are component in the sense that they are part or
geographically part of the province.
FR. BERNAS: No, I think it is because they are juridically part of the province.
MR. BENGZON: Then there is a difference of opinion on the definition of
component. For example, in my Province of Pangasinan, we have two
cities, San
Carlos City and Dagupan City, whose charters specifically prohibit the voters
from electing provincial officials because these two cities could dominate
the provincial seats from governor all the way down. Residents of these two
cities could combine and would have a very undue advantage of dominating
the
elections for the seats in the provincial government. However, they are not
qualified to become highly urbanized and, therefore, in their charters it is so
stated that they cannot vote for provincial officials.
So they are at that particular level, and this is what I mean when I insist on
inserting this clause: UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE
OTHERWISE.
Conversely speaking, in the case of San Jose City in Nueva Ecija which is a
component city, it is a small city and yet it is a city, and it is within the
jurisdiction of the Province.
FR. BERNAS: Do I take it therefore that there are actually three kinds of cities
now, not just highly urbanized cities and component cities, but we also
have highly urbanized cities, component cities which are under the
jurisdiction of the province and nonhighly urbanized cities which are not
component
cities?
MR. BENGZON: It comes out to that because these highly urbanized cities
just came later on. Actually, there were really two kinds of cities before the
component cities and those cities whose charters prohibit their voters from
voting for provincial elective officials. This term highly urbanized cities
just came in lately within the last twenty years.
FR. BERNAS: I quite realize that there is a variety in the provisions of the
various charters of the cities, but even before we started talking about
highly urbanized cities, there were differences in these charters as to
whether or not they provide that residents of a city could vote in a province.
That
is a fact.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: What I am trying to say is that perhaps we should try to make
uniform rules for these nonhighly urbanized cities. In all fairness, because
they
are subject to the jurisdiction of the province they should have a say on who
should rule the province, otherwise we will have to face the problem of equal
protection. I quite realize that the Ceniza case faced the issue of equal
protection but in a very unconvincing way, I must say.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, but then if we are going to eliminate this clause which I
am talking about, we will give way to an anomalous situation where
residents of
these big cities which, under definition, are still not qualified as highly
urbanized will be able to dominate the provincial seats. Perhaps, we could
keep
these three categories and face the facts and recognize that until such time
as these cities whose charters prohibit them from voting for the provincial
elective officials shall be qualified to become highly urbanized cities and,
therefore, become totally independent, then they should remain as such
because
these cities by their very charters are also independent of the province, like
Dagupan, for example.
FR. BERNAS: I would go along for a uniform classification where we have
highly urbanized cities which are independent of the province and, therefore,
do
not vote in the province; nonhighly urbanized cities independent of the
province by reason of their charters; and then component cities.
MR. BENGZON: Yes. So, with that concept, I would be willing to reword
Section 4.
FR. BERNAS: In other words, component cities, precisely because they are
component, should always have the right. And though not highly urbanized,
they are
independent cities, would they not be considered component anymore?
MR. BENGZON: I would be willing to go along with that concept, with that
interpretation and, therefore, let us craft it in such a way that there are really
three kinds of cities.
FR. BERNAS: I would go along with that, if that has to be the case but the
only thing I would be against is having a city that is under a province but
deprived of the right to vote for the officials of the province.
MR. BENGZON: And is not independent.
FR. BERNAS: And is not independent.
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: My question will be propounded to the main proponent,
MR. DAVIDE: Will Commissioner Maambong agree with me that in the
exercise of its broad and plenary powers in enacting a Local Government
Code, Congress
itself may provide for the manner of the election of the officials of local
government units and all other matters related to the relationship between
one
local unit and another local unit?
MR. MAAMBONG: As far as the relationship between local government units

is concerned, Congress has the power; but as far as the mode or procedure
in the
election of local government officials is concerned, Congress also has the
power but that would properly fall under the provisions of the Election Code.
MR. DAVIDE: Talking about the Local Government Code, would the Gentleman
not agree with me that the Code itself will provide that voters in highly
urbanized cities cannot vote for provincial elective officials in the province
where the highly urbanized city is located?
MR. MAAMBONG: Congress can provide for such legislation, as long as it is
consistent with the provisions of the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would like to explain that. When Congress enacted the
Local Government Code which provides for provincial and city relations, as
well as
that the electorate of highly urbanized cities shall not vote in the election for
provincial officials, it approved this legislation because this was a
provision of the 1973 Constitution under Article XI, Section 4 (1).
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, without Section 2, Article XI of the 1973
Constitution, it was well within the plenary power of the legislature to provide
a
restriction against city voters voting for provincial elective officials.
MR. MAAMBONG: Let me put this properly in its historical context. At the
moment when there was yet no provision in the 1973 Constitution which I
adverted
to, the basic criteria used by Congress in its provisions in the Election Code
was the individual charter of the cities concerned. For example, if the
charter of the city provides that the city voters should not vote for the
provincial elective officials, then Congress was guided by this charter. In the
case where the charter was silent on that kind of provision, then Congress
took it to mean that the voters in that particular city are allowed to vote for
elective provincial officials. The guideline then was based on the charter of a
particular city, in the absence of the previous guideline now indicated in
the 1973 Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, without the proposed Section 4 now, Congress
would have the ample flexibility to determine, in the creation of a city,
whether
or not the voters in that city can vote for the provincial officials.
MR. MAAMBONG: I agree wholeheartedly.

MR. DAVIDE: In other words, without the proposed Section 4, it would be
proper now for the Local Government Code to make such a provision or not
to make
any such provision.
MR. DAVIDE: Therefore, we can now delete Section 4, because we still leave
it to Congress to determine whether or not the voters in a particular city may
be allowed to vote for the provincial elective officials.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would not agree with that, considering that even in our
configuration of Section 2, we had that provision, but which was already
deleted,
that there will be no change in the existing form of local government units.
The Gentleman might think that when we change a highly urbanized city to a
component city, this does not affect the form. I feel that this affects the form,
and I think the highly urbanized cities now existing have already
acquired some vested rights on this matter.
MR. DAVIDE: The deletion of the second paragraph of the original Section 2
precisely broadens the authority of the legislature. At any time it can change;
even the Local Government Code can change the existing form of the local
government. That was debated upon last Saturday, I guess. That was the
amendment
of Commissioner Ople. I objected to it because it would now allow the Local
Government Code to adopt any other kind of structure of government for the
local officials.
With the deletion, it would necessarily mean that Congress now has a much
wider prerogative to establish a system of local governmental units, to
establish
the relationship between a city and the mother province, regardless of the
classification of the city whether it is highly urbanized or component. The
point is, Section 4, as now sought to be amended, is not necessary. It is a
superfluity if we take into account the totality of the original Section 2,
without the last paragraph.
Does not the Commissioner believe so?
MR. MAAMBONG: I do not believe so. I still maintain that logic demands, if
not the law itself, that there should be some kind of classification of cities.
Let us take the case of Bais City, which looks like a barrio to me, without any
offense meant, of course.
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the point. If we want to have logic, we should
leave it to the Local Government Code because it is only the Local
Government
Code that could probably harmonize. With the provision now, as the
proposed amendment is worded, there will be a lot of confusion. We will be
classifying
cities not only into two, but possibly three or four. In addition to what has
been admitted regarding the question of Commissioner Bernas, not only do
we
have a highly urbanized city, a component city, but we will also have a highly
urbanized city which is at the same time a component city, because
according
to the apportionment provided in Section 5 of the Article on the
Legislative/National Assembly, we actually increase the requirement of
population as one
of the bases for classifying a city into a highly urbanized city.
In addition to these, we might have a less urbanized city. Therefore, if we
have to harmonize everything or if we have to attain logic, we better delete
this particular section and leave it to the Local Government Code to provide
for the proper approach to this very illogical situation. Does not the
Commissioner believe so?
MR. MAAMBONG: I do not believe so. Let me give my reason why we should
make a classification in the Constitution itself. The reason why there are
chartered
cities where voters are allowed to vote for provincial elective officials, and
there are chartered cities where voters are not allowed to vote is that
before there were no guidelines provided in the Constitution. So what was
the result? We had served the Members of Congress who are politicians. If
there
is no guideline, politicians always try to protect their self-interest, and that is
why we do not have uniform charters of our cities.
If we do not provide certain forms of criteria, the same thing will happen
where a very small city will be granted or denied rights which are only proper
to be granted or denied a highly urbanized or a bigger city. Another point is,
this Article on Local Governments makes liberal use of the Local Government
Code. As I understood from the Chairman of the Committee, he said that
under the present configuration of the Transitory Provisions, all the laws are
supposed to be valid. In this Article, Section 11, for example, says
established in the Local Government Code. There are already criteria, so
why do we
have to disturb these? What could be our reason for disturbing these criteria?
MR. DAVIDE: There are several reasons why we must disturb the criteria. First
of all, the Local Government Code as presently worded does not actually vest
real autonomy on the local governmental units. The Commissioner will notice
in the provision of the Local Government Code that the local governmental
units
are all linked to the so-called national agencies having offices within the local
governmental units. So, in short, since the idea now is to provide for a
more decentralized government of the local governmental units and greater
local autonomy pursuant to the Padilla amendment, the entire Local
Government
Code as now existing needs reassessment, total review, total surgery, as a
matter of fact.
On the matter of existing charters of some cities which specifically provide
that the voters in that particular city cannot vote for elective provincial
officials, the determination thereof was based on a specific criteria then
existing at the time. It was the collective wisdom of the Congress to
determine
whether for a particular city to be granted a charter, it also provides for the
disenfranchisement of the voters of that city in the matter of the election
of the local provincial officials or otherwise.
But under the proposal of Commissioner Maambong to incorporate the
clause UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE OTHERWISE, we
are, in effect, making
it difficult or impossible for the succeeding Congress to even repeal or modify
the charters of existing cities where the voters are not allowed to vote
for provincial officials. This will be a class legislation of the highest order
because for these cities now where voters are not allowed to vote for the
provincial officials, the charters can no longer be repealed, modified or
amended by Congress because we are already putting it here. We are, in
effect,
institutionalizing the disenfranchisement of the voters of this particular city
from voting for the provincial officials pursuant to their charter, whereas
new cities will be created, with flexibility given to Congress. But I am more
concerned with the existing cities with such charters.
MR. OPLE: May we invite the three Cebuanos on the floor who are apparently
exporting some of their problems to the Constitutional Commission so that
we can
understand the problem better and how these concepts apply to Cebu.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I would say that the problem in Cebu has not
been taken into account in my interpellations. And that is the reason why I
propose to delete the section and leave it to the Local Government Code to
decide on harmonizing conflicting charters.
MR. RAMA: I would like to speak against the amendment of Commissioner
Maambong. The major premise, Madam President, is that this provision now
existing as
proposed in the Local Government Code is an anti-warlordism provision
that is a reality that we have to address. There are evils in this government
which
cannot be solved in the vacuum of theories and philosophical arguments. Let
us go into the history of these cities whose voters had been disenfranchised.
The history is this. All these cities were allowed to vote for their provincial
elective officials. Now, came the warlords, particularly during the time of
Mr. Marcos. Their ploy was this: They disallowed these centers of population
and centers of media and schools from voting because they could not
establish
their political fiefdoms if the city voters, who are more informed, were
allowed to vote. That is the history of all the cities whose voters had been
disenfranchised. It was at the behest of the warlords in order to entrench
themselves that they were disenfranchised. Reality and the fact shows that
they
could not establish and entrench themselves if the cities were allowed to
vote.
Now, the most powerful argument en contra was the one that was set forth
by Commissioners Bernas and Monsod. Why should the city voters be
allowed to vote
for their elective provincial officials when the province itself does not have
jurisdiction over the city? That is a beautiful, wonderful, theoretical,
constitutional argument an artful argument. But the fact is that the
election of warlord chieftains as heads of the province affects the lives of the
citizens in the cities. We all understand, Madam President, that the cities in
the provinces cover small areas. Although the cities are beyond the
jurisdiction of the province, when one is a resident of the city and wishes to
go out of that city, he is affected by the provincial government of the
warlords. For instance, there were people in the City of Cebu, particularly
NAMFREL members, who wanted to go to a certain town. But because the
warlord
had control over the province, they were terrorized; they could not get out of
the city; they could not enter certain towns. And yet, city voters families
live there; their interest and properties are there.
I am addressing a specific problem of the evil of warlords. The warlords
control the province because they disenfranchise the voters who cannot be
terrorized because they are better informed and are larger in number. This
will allow the warlords to thrive and to survive and terrorize the whole
province.
We are talking about the jurisdiction of the province. It is true the province
has no jurisdiction over the city nor the people in a city. But the seats of
government of the provinces are in the cities. When we allow the warlords to
win because they had gerrymandered these voters out of the provincial
election, they control even the cities to a certain extent that they bring their
goons into the cities and the peace and order condition there,
particularly cities which are the seats of provincial governments, is affected.
That is why the voters in the City of Cebu have been crying for and
demanding their right to vote so that they could have a say as to who are
going to be the heads of the province. This is because the provincial
government
or the officials of the province affect their lives. As a matter of fact, their
right to vote is affected also. And in the case of the last election, for
instance, we could not go to certain towns because the warlords had control
of the province and we could not campaign for our presidential candidate.
So, this is a very real problem that cannot be solved by just going into the
vacuum of constitutional or philosophical arguments. The main thrust of the
provision now is to try to solve this great evil of warlordism which has thrived
and is still existing up to this time.
MR. MAAMBONG: I really would have wanted to discuss this proposed
amendment without any reference to a particular province or a particular city
because we
are talking here of a constitutional provision. If we start relating a
constitutional provision, which is supposed to set up certain standards and
guidelines to particular problems, we are going to get lost.
The honorable Floor Leader talked of warlordism. I do not want to waste the
time of the Commission, Madam President, but may I just remind
Commissioner
Rama that during the time of Senator Sergio Osmea, Jr., he used the City of
Cebu to control the whole province. He ran for city mayor; after two years, he
ran for Congress; after two years, he ran for senator; then, he went back as
city mayor and assigned a vice-mayor. Why? The theory was this: Whoever
controls the City of Cebu controls the whole Province of Cebu. And now, the
present officer-in-charge, who has the namesake of former Senator Osmea,
Jr.,
I think, has the intention do the same thing control the City of Cebu so
that the Province of Cebu can be controlled. However, I would like to discuss
this provision not on those terms, Madam President. I would like to discuss
this in a very logical and dispassionate manner.
Commissioner Davide said that Congress can no longer revise charters of the
cities because we inserted here the clause UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE
CHARTERS
PROVIDE OTHERWISE. I think we are reading different laws on statutory
construction. Congress can always revise laws, whether it is a charter a
resolution,
an ordinance or whatever. As long as it is a law, it can be revised, amended,
repealed by Congress. And so, there is no fear. Commissioner Davide also
mentioned the charters of different cities. I will repeat my argument here.
The reason why the charters of different cities have different provisions is
precisely that there were no criteria or standards set in the 1935
Constitution. We already started this in 1973. It is already incorporated in the
Local
Government Code. Why do we not leave it at that, Madam President?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Tingson be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized
MR. RAMA: Madam President, just one statement. Could Commissioner
Tingson allow me just one statement?
It was mentioned here by Commissioner Maambong that Sergio Osmea, Jr.
abused or took advantage of the situation then, where the city voters were
allowed
to vote. But it must be realized, Madam President. that precisely, thanks to
the voters in the City of Cebu, Sergio Osmea, Jr. was able to end a reign of
terror at that time. Now, if the City of Cebu voters were not allowed to vote,
he could not have ended a reign of terror in 1949 or 1950. That was the
reason why the Cebu voters would like to vote, so that they would fight the
terrorists in the province.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, warlordism can be discussed from the
standpoint of the person who is accused of being a warlord. I served under
Senator
Osmea. I was one of his campaign managers way back. I have nothing
against him. He was one of the heroes of our country, but let us look at it in
this
manner. When he was holding on to the reins of power in the City of Cebu, he
had control of the Province of Cebu. He dictated everything. He ran for
mayor;
he ran for Congress, went back to being mayor, became senator, came back
as mayor, why? It was because the power situs was in the City of Cebu. Now,
if we
are talking of warlordism from the side of the Province of Cebu, the same
argument can be used; but I will not go on with this, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let us listen to Commissioner Tingson.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I hate to mention this but these fellow
Cebuano Commissioners are exactly and specifically expressing the
predicament in
which we find ourselves in Negros Occidental.
Madam President, in that small Province of Negros Occidental, we have San
Carlos City, Talisay City, Silay City, Bago City, Bacolod City and La Carlota
City. If we eliminate all these people and do not allow them to select the
governor, who will be voting for the governor? I mean, literally, nobody.
Another interesting thing is, Madam President, the lives of these people in
these cities are so intertwined with the whole province that it is almost
ridiculous not to allow these people to vote for the person who will be ruling
their lives. I hate to mention Negros and the local political situation we
have there. That is why sometimes I think I am in favor of the amendment of
Commissioner Davide to delete Section 4 and then just give it to the local
charter and let the local assembly decide on it.
MR. MAAMBONG: I hate to interrupt, Madam President, and forgive me,
Commissioner Tingson, I think the Gentleman was following very well the
discussion. We
were talking about highly urbanized cities and component cities. We are not
going to disenfranchise the component cities in his province because,
precisely, they are component cities. If the component cities will be
disenfranchised, there will be nobody to vote for the governors the
Gentleman is
correct there.
But we are talking here of two different things. We are talking about
classifying cities into component cities and highly urbanized cities.

MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I ask some questions of
MR. DE LOS REYES: Commissioner Maambong, is it not a fact that the money
collected by highly urbanized cities cannot be spent for public works
improvement
in the province?
MR. DE LOS REYES: And vice versa, the money in the province cannot be
used for expenses for the public improvements in highly urbanized cities.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So for all practical purposes, they are independent of
each other; they have nothing to do with each other.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is precisely why the 1973 Constitution says shall be
independent of the province. The Local Government Code says shall be
independent
of the province. It is precisely because of that principle.
MR. DE LOS REYES: For example, someone from a highly urbanized city won
in an election for a provincial office, he can divert some of the funds from the
province for the highly urbanized city to the prejudice of the province, can he
not?
MR. MAAMBONG: No, he cannot.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee has not reacted yet.
MR. NOLLEDO: We would like that the question be resolved on the floor, but
as Chairman of the Committee, I would like to express my support for the
provision of which Commissioner Rama mentioned the laudable arguments.
Madam President, going over the provisions of Title Three of the Local
Government Code will reveal that there are no special provisions on highly
urbanized
cities aside from the provisions on income level and population level. So, I
find no fundamental difference between component cities and highly
urbanized
cities aside from the fact that these cities are unalterably located in the
provinces and their affairs are interlinked with each other, so much so that
the need for coordination on essential services like peace and order, urban
and rural planning, is irresistible.
BISHOP BACANI: Before we vote, may I ask whether we are going to vote on
the entire Section 3, the two paragraphs of the suggested amendment; and,
second,
whether when we vote, we vote with an understanding that the amendments
suggested by Commissioner Bernas are already included.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for the reminder, Commissioner Bacani. My
coproponent, Commissioner Bengzon, has just given me a reformulation in
order that the
problem contemplated by Commissioner Bernas will be solved. And in the
draft amendment that we have presented to the Committee, we would like to
propose
the following: on the second line of Section 3, after the word cities, insert
the words AS WELL AS THOSE CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS PROHIBIT ITS
VOTERS FROM
VOTING FOR PROVINCIAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS, to be followed by a comma
(,).
MR. NOLLEDO: What draft is the Gentleman using?
MR. MAAMBONG: The one I presented to the Committee. Let me repeat,
Madam President: EXISTING HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES AS WELL AS THOSE
CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS
PROHIBIT ITS VOTERS FROM VOTING FOR PROVINCIAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS,
AND THOSE DETERMINED BY REASONABLE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY
LAW SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF
THE PROVINCE. HOWEVER, THE VOTERS OF COMPONENT CITIES WITHIN A
PROVINCE SHALL NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ELECTIVE

PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, before we vote, I think there are some
grammatical defects in the proposal.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, I suspect so.
MR. NOLLEDO: With regard to the phrase AND THOSE DETERMINED BY
REASONABLE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY LAW, to what cities is the
proponent referring?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that there is need to suspend the session for a few
minutes to clarify this matter.
It was 4.01 p.m.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, so that we will not lose time, I suggest
that we take this up step by step. I have talked to Commissioner Davide and I
agree
with him that the prejudicial question is whether we should delete the whole
of Section 3, including the proposed amendments, because if we decide to
delete, there will be nothing to talk about and we will not lose time. On the
other hand, if the deletion will not be approved by the body, I will present
a reformulated amendment, minus the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Bengzon. We will separate that. And if my reformulated
amendment will be approved,
it will be the turn of Commissioner Bengzon to insert the form of amendment
that he has in mind so that that would be voted on. So, the first issue is
whether or not we are going to delete Section 3, including the proposed
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Davide say?
MR. DAVIDE: I agree that the deletion is an anterior amendment and I seek
for the deletion of the original Section 3, now Section 4, for the reason that I
had respectfully submitted, to the Local Government Code in the light of
what is provided for in Section 2, as follows:
The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a
more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a
system of decentralization with effective mechanism, recall, initiative, and
referendum, allocate among the different local government units their
powers,
responsibilities and resources and provide for the qualifications, election,
appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions, and duties
of
local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation
of the local units.
The provision is broad enough to allow Congress to provide that highly
urbanized cities shall be independent of the province. As a matter of fact, in
the
proposed Section 4, the clause The Local Government Code may provide is
directory in character. This means to say that we concede to the plenary
authority of the Congress to provide in the Local Government Code
everything related to decentralization and local autonomy and their
respective relation,
not only with the different local units but also of its inhabitants with the other
units, for instance, cities in respect to the province. In short,
Section 3 is a superfluity. It is not necessary. So, my proposal is to delete the
whole of Section 3 or 4.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am, of course, against the deletion because as I have
mentioned earlier, it is necessary that the Constitution should provide a
classification of cities into highly urbanized cities and component cities;
otherwise, if we rely solely on the prerogative of Congress, what happened in
the past, Madam President, will happen again. If there is a politician who is
strong enough, he will sway Congress one way or another to allow one city to
vote, while another politician would not allow another city to vote, depending
on the winds of politics. So, I feel and I would agree with the statement
of Commissioner Bernas that there should be some form of classification,
but it should be limited to two classifications highly urbanized cities and
component cities.
I oppose the motion to delete, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I ask a question?
MR. BENGZON: Commissioner Davides proposal to delete the proposed
Section 4, if it is carried out, means that all those cities whose charters
prohibit the
voters from voting for provincial elective officials and charters that allow
their city voters to vote for provincial elective officials will remain as
they are. Is this correct?
MR. DAVIDE: They will continue to do so until a new Local Government Code
shall have been enacted or until Congress shall have repealed these
particular
charters.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment.
We prefer that it be submitted to the floor.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We are now ready to vote on the proposed amendment of
Davide that the proposed Section 4 now be deleted, please raise their hand.
(Few Members
raised their hand.)
their hand.)
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I will now propose the amendment, as

reformulated, but as I mentioned earlier, with the indulgence of my
coproponent,
Commissioner Bengzon, I will not include his proposed amendment.
However, Commissioner Bengzon is always free to present his own primary
amendment later
on.
My amendment reads: Sec. 4. Highly urbanized cities, as determined by
LAW, shall be independent of the province. However, the voters of
COMPONENT CITIES
within A province shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective
provincial officials. We deleted the clause unless their respective charters
provide otherwise in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is also
entirely deleted. I would like to know from the Committee if this formulation
is
acceptable.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we regret that we cannot accept the
amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then I ask that it be put to a vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What happened to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Bernas? Has it been incorporated?
MR. MAAMBONG: It has already been incorporated, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I just say something?
In effect, the amendment means that there will only be two kinds of cities
highly urbanized cities and component cities. Highly urbanized cities are
independent of the provinces. Component cities are precisely component
portions of the province and entitled to vote within the province and may not
be
deprived of the right to vote. The effect of this on existing charters which
deprive citizens of the right to vote would be the amendment of the said
charters, if those cities are not highly urbanized.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the rule is that the inhabitants of the
component city can vote for the provincial officials.

MR. BENGZON: Perhaps we should vote first on my amendment to the
amendment, because once this amendment is approved, then I will be
foreclosed from
presenting another amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Commissioners amendment not been incorporated
in the amendment of Commissioner Maambong?
MR. BENGZON: No, Madam President, because my amendment would include
cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective
officials. As Commissioner Bernas said, if this amendment of Commissioner
Maambong is approved, then my amendment is foreclosed. So, I would like
to
propose this amendment to Commissioner Maambongs amendment so that
this can be voted upon. If my amendment wins, then it will be included.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee agrees with Commissioner
Bengzon.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I was about to say that the voting of my
proposed amendment will not foreclose Commissioner Bengzon from
presenting one
sentence or two so that the proposed amendment will be included, but the
Committee has already made a stand on this point and I am not about to
question
the Committee.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the amendment to the amendment will be
inserted after the word cities, so that it will read: Highly urbanized cities,
AS
WELL AS THOSE CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS PROHIBIT ITS VOTERS FROM
VOTING FOR PROVINCIAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS, shall be independent of the
province.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the right to vote?
MR. BENGZON: However, the voters of COMPONENT CITIES within A
province shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial
officials.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by Commissioner Maambong?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, it is all right with me, but I was thinking
that the phrase which Commissioner Bengzon proposes to insert should be
after
the word LAW in the third sentence, so it will read: Highly urbanized cities
as determined by LAW, AS WELL AS THOSE CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS
PROHIBIT ITS
VOTERS FROM VOTING FOR PROVINCIAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS, shall be
independent of the province.
MR. BENGZON: I accept.
MR. MAAMBONG: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
accept the amendment, because this will prohibit Congress from amending
the charter when
exigencies so demand.
FR. BERNAS: May I offer a different interpretation? This amendment does not
fossilize the charters. For as long as the charters are just charters, they are
amendable. The moment, therefore, that the voters are given the right to
vote in a province, then their cities become component cities. Their cities
become
component cities or these could graduate into becoming highly urbanized
cities. They have two options Congress can either make their cities highly
urbanized cities or component cities.
MR. BENGZON: That is right, Madam President. We do not fossilize the
charter. May we now ask for a vote?
MR. RODRIGO: Before voting, may I have one question?
MR. RODRIGO: How about the present highly urbanized cities? Let us say that
Congress decides to change the definition of highly urbanized cities, may
Congress enact a law to the effect that an existing urbanized city no longer is
considered an urbanized city?
MR. BENGZON: Yes.

MR. RODRIGO: But there is a constitutional provision that urbanized cities
can no longer be deurbanized by Congress.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I think the amendment removed the word
existing.
MR. RODRIGO: Was the word existing removed?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, that was removed.
FR. BERNAS: It just says Highly urbanized cities as determined by LAW.
Therefore, a city which is presently considered highly urbanized can still be
demoted if the standards of law change.
MR. DAVIDE: May I seek one simple clarification. What about cities whose
original charters allowed the voters therein to vote for provincial elective
officials, but later on became highly urbanized and, therefore, their voters
were no longer allowed to vote for the provincial officials? Which will
prevail insofar as the cities are concerned their original charters or their
having been declared highly urbanized under the Local Government Code?
MR. MAAMBONG: As I mentioned earlier, charters can be amended by law. In
the case of cities whose charter allowed their voters to vote for provincial
elective officials, there were some charters which were amended by law or
by decree. And because of the criteria under the Local Government Code,
many of
those cities which qualified filed their petitions to convert themselves into
highly urbanized cities and were declared highly urbanized cities. So, in
answer to Commissioner Davide, I would like to venture an opinion that these
cities whose original charters allowed the voters to vote but had been
converted into highly urbanized cities under the provisions of the Local
Government Code or some other presidential decree, and because they
complied with
the criteria are now considered highly urbanized cities.
Madam President, that is precisely why in our original formulation of our

amendments, we placed the word existing but we were convinced by the
Committee
that we do not have to use the word existing so that Congress will be given
the leeway to determine whether these highly urbanized cities declared as
such are really qualified.
MR. DAVIDE: Another question. A component city became highly urbanized
after the ratification of this Constitution with this provision now. But under
the
charter of that component city, as of the date of the effectivity of the new
Constitution, its voters can vote for the provincial elective officials. Would
it mean that subsequently, because of its having satisfied the requirements
for a highly urbanized city, despite its charter, the voters therein can no
longer subsequently vote for the provincial elective officials?
MR. BENGZON: That is correct; provided that they have complied with the
procedural requirements of the law they applied; they are processed and
are found
to be truly highly urbanized. That means they have graduated to that level.
MR. DAVIDE: Would it therefore be the position of the Gentleman that a
charter can be amended by merely qualifying to a higher category of a city?
In
short, it is an implied amendment to an original charter. It will not require
any amendatory act.
MR. BENGZON: There is, in effect, a legislative act because there is already a
law that is passed.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. But we know for a fact that a law or a charter can only be
repealed, amended or modified by another law. In this particular case, it is
the mere graduation that the Gentleman is talking about that would now
repeal or amend the provision.
MR. BENGZON: But once it qualifies and it proves to have been qualified,
then there is no bar from its being declared to be a highly urbanized city.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. AZCUNA: May I ask Commissioner Maambong a few questions?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.

MR. AZCUNA: Under the amendment of Commissioner Maambong, there are,
in effect, two kinds of cities independent cities and component cities. The
independent cities are the highly urbanized cities as determined by law and
the cities whose charters do not allow their residents to vote for provincial
elective officials. They are independent.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: The other kind of cities is the so-called component cities
because they are parts of the provinces and they can elect the provincial
elective
officials.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: In the highly urbanized cities as determined by law, if the
Commissioners amendment is passed, Congress will have no power to allow
them to
vote for provincial elective officials. A law allowing a highly urbanized city to
vote for provincial elective officials would be unconstitutional.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Maambong please read the particular
paragraph that we will vote on, just to be clear on this.
MR. MAAMBONG: Sec. 4. Highly urbanized cities as determined by LAW, AS
WELL AS THOSE CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS PROHIBIT ITS VOTERS FROM
VOTING FOR PROVINCIAL
ELECTIVE OFFICIALS, shall be independent of the province. However, the
voters of COMPONENT CITIES within A province shall not be deprived of their
right to
vote for elective provincial officials.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular amendment
proposed by Commissioner Maambong, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised
their hand.)
hand.)

approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: That will be Section 4, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 5 was already approved and then Section 6 is the
Davide amendment. Section 7, which reads as follows, will be under
consideration now:
The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local
governments to insure that laws are faithfully executed.
Madam President, before we proceed to Section 7, the Committee would like
to request the Floor Leader to make a motion that Sections 4, 5 and 6 be
considered approved and closed to amendments.
MR. OPLE: May I remind the Commission that when we approved the
amendment pertaining to metropolitan areas, the understanding then was
that this would be
relocated to a section immediately preceding Section 6.
MR. NOLLEDO: The original Section 6 is now Section 9.
MR. OPLE: Is that now Section 9?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is why the Committee has followed the instruction of
the Commission that we should relocate it immediately preceding Section
9,
formerly Section 6. There is no violation in that section.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in that case, I agree with the specific place in
which that has been located.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before we go to Section 7, we would like the Floor Leader to
please file a motion that the Padilla amendment on Section 4 be closed to
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Section 4 has been just approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes; we now go to Section 5 and put this to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Nolledo please read Section 5?

MR. NOLLEDO: Sec. 5. Legislative bodies of local governments shall have
sectoral representation as may be prescribed by law.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 5, as worded by the
Committee, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
hand.)
approved.
Will Commissioner Nolledo please read what is Section 6 now.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Section 6 is the Davide amendment which
was approved in the last session. It reads: THE TERM OF OFFICE OF
ELECTIVE LOCAL
OFFICIALS EXCEPT BARANGAY OFFICIALS WHICH SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
LAW, SHALL BE THREE YEARS AND NO SUCH OFFICIAL SHALL SERVE FOR
MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE
TERMS. VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE FOR ANY LENGTH OF
TIME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY
OF HIS SERVICE FOR THE FULL
TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular Section 6 as read
by the Chairman, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
hand.)
approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we shall read Section 7, formerly Section 5,
and which will be subject to amendment if there is any:
governments to insure that laws are faithfully executed.
MR. BENGZON: A point of clarification, Madam President.

MR. BENGZON: Considering that we have granted autonomous governments
the freedom to pass their own laws, is my understanding correct that the
President
will insure that the national laws are faithfully executed in the local
government units?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is a settled rule; it applies to national laws. But the
President is not prohibited, in my personal opinion and without binding the
Committee, from seeing to it that laws passed by the regional legislative
assemblies should also be complied with, because they have also the force
of law
based on these constitutional provisions.
MR. BENGZON: Can we have the official interpretation or sense of the
Committee so that that would be very clear on record?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is my personal opinion.
MR. OPLE: I think the Chairman speaks for the Committee in this case,
Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: I have a few questions for the Committee. In the spirit of local
autonomy, would it not be better if we were to retain the hierarchy of
supervisory powers which were found in the 1973 Constitution the
municipality supervises the barrio; the province supervises the towns and
component
cities; and then the President supervises the provinces and highly urbanized
cities and independent cities. That would seem to be more in keeping with
our
desire for decentralization. I am referring to the text of Article XI, Section 4
(1) of the 1973 Constitution which says that:
Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and
municipalities with respect to component barrios, shall ensure that the acts
of their component units are within the scope of their assigned powers and
functions . . .
In other words, there is a hierarchical gradation as far as supervisory

authority is concerned. The President need not directly bother himself or
herself
with the lower political units, but rather the President must attend to
supervising the highest political units below the national government.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I find no inconsistency between my
previous statement and the theory of Commissioner Bernas which, besides
Section 7 here,
talks of local governments. And so the term local governments should
cover all local governments from the barangay up to the provincial level and
even up
to the highest position in the autonomous region. However, the hierarchical
way of supervision can still be observed by the President.
FR. BERNAS: Is it the intention of the Committee that although only the
President is mentioned, what is intended is a hierarchical system of
supervision?
FR. BERNAS: On that understanding, I would perhaps suggest that we drop
the phrase to insure that laws are faithfully executed because that is what
general supervision means anyway.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Would Commissioner Nolledo be amenable to just dropping that
last phrase and putting a period (.) after government?
MR. AZCUNA: May I just point out that under the 1935 Constitution, the
President shall have general supervision over all local governments as may
be
provided by law, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
There seems to be two powers, two separate concepts given to the President
vis-a-vis local government based on the 1935 Constitution: a power of
general supervision, and a power to take care that the laws are faithfully
executed.
In the Committee draft, these were combined to state that the President shall
have general supervision over all local governments to insure that laws are
faithfully executed, and the amendment of Commissioner Bernas, as
accepted by the Committee, has now dropped that second part. So, we will
only have the
power of general supervision over local governments.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think the functions in the 1935 Constitution are subsumed in
the general phrase general supervision.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I also observe that in that sentence read
by Commissioner Azcuna with respect to local governments under the 1935
Constitution, two powers are really mentioned there; the power of general
supervision of the President and, in effect, the power of control of the
legislature over the local government. That is why in the 1935 Constitution
the power of the President over local government is as may be provided by
law
because the power and control over local governments was completely in the
hands of the legislature.
However, with decentralization and local autonomy now, that complete
control of the legislature over local governments is broken.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I raise a point of clarification in connection with the
question of Commissioner Bengzon regarding the autonomous regions in
relation to
the power of general supervision of the President over local governments.
I notice that in the creation of the present regional governments in Regions
IX and XII, Section 35 of Presidential Decree No. 1618 provides that The
President shall have the power of general supervision and control over the
autonomous regions. My question is: Under the present thinking of the
Committee, this power of the President will be limited only to general
supervision, and this power of control is already taken out, am I correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: I would also like to put on record Section 3 of Presidential
Decree No. 1618 again in relation to the regional governments, and it reads:
Within the framework of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Republic of the Philippines and its Constitution, internal autonomy shall
be established in the autonomous regions with legislative and executive

machinery to exercise the powers and responsibilities herein specified in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines.
My question is: Would this Section 3 still be in keeping with the thinking of
the Committee in the formulation of the autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: We are granting only general supervision with respect to
autonomous regions.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, but the reference to the provisions of the Constitution
and the laws of the Republic of the Philippines would still be equally valid.
MR. NOLLEDO: That seems to create some confusion. So, we are not bound
by the provisions that the Gentleman has cited.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, my thinking with regard to autonomous
regions is that the Constitution of the Philippines and the laws of the Republic
of
the Philippines are still applicable to autonomous regions because with
respect to legislation as pointed out under Presidential Decree 1618, national
laws
shall be supreme vis-a-vis regional laws enacted by the Sangguniang
Pampook. In other words, in the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution and the
laws passed
by the Republic of the Philippines are still above everything else.
MR. NOLLEDO: What Constitution is the Gentleman referring to?
MR. MAAMBONG: The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the
present Constitution we are drafting; but in the case of the regional
government,
the Constitution of 1973, because this has reference to the previous
Constitution. But I was thinking of the autonomous regions which will still
have to
follow the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines we are now drafting.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I agree with you.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to call attention to the fact that in the Article on
the Executive which we already passed on Second Reading and copies of
which
have already been distributed for Third Reading, we have a provision exactly
the same as this. Section 17 of the Article on the Executive reads:
The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus
and offices. He shall exercise general supervision over all local governments
as
may be provided by law and shall take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.
So, there is a duplication. As Chairman of the Committee on Style, I would
like to know if we have to delete.
MR. OPLE: We must admit a bias in favor of keeping this provision in the
Article on Local Governments.
MR. RODRIGO: In the 1935 Constitution, this power of the President was also
in the Article on the Executive Department.
MR. NOLLEDO: In that case, Madam President, after our attention has been
called by Commissioner Rodrigo, I think the best way is to align this provision
with what has been approved on Third Reading.
MS. AQUINO: It is my submission that in the spirit of recognizing autonomous
regions which is a breakthrough it is a new provision in this new draft
Constitution the provision should be retained. It will better allow for a
more thorough consideration of the concept of autonomous regions in the
context
of the general supervisory powers of the President.
MR. RODRIGO: Section 17, under the Article on the Executive, makes a
distinction between the authority of the President over departments, bureaus
and
offices and his power over local governments. Let me read it again. Section
17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus
and offices. Then it makes a distinction: He shall exercise general
supervision over all local governments . . .
Commissioner Guingona is here and this is more his line because he is the
Chairman of the Committee on Sponsorship.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo, there is no word control in that

last sentence over local governments.
MR. RODRIGO: There is none, precisely.
THE PRESIDENT: It just says supervision.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, if we transfer this to the Local
Governments, Section 17 will only read: The President shall have control of
all executive
departments, bureaus and offices. We remove the next sentence and
transfer it to the Article on Local Governments.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: I vaguely recall, and perhaps, we can check this in the record,
when we were discussing that particular provision on the Executive
Department,
somewhere along the line someone adverted to the fact that this may have
to be modified depending on what we decide on local autonomy. So, if there
is a
necessity for a reformulation of the Article on the Executive, the Article on
the Executive must yield to the general spirit of what we might have on the
Article on Local Governments.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I remember it was Commissioner Quesada
who raised the question. That was the agreement we had to finally decide in
the
Committee on Local Government.
MR. RODRIGO: That is a matter for the Committee on Sponsorship which has
the function of seeing to it that there is no duplication or overlapping of
articles.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, it is not just a question of overlapping, but it
is a question of real contradiction. It is not so much a conflict between the
power of the President and the power of local governments as between the
power of local governments and the power of Congress because the
President will
have general supervision as may be provided by law. The implication is that
Congress has blanket authority to provide any law with respect to local
governments as it had under the 1935 Constitution, and that is not our
intention anymore. That is why in my earlier remarks I said that under the
1935
Constitution, the President had general supervision over local governments
and Congress had control.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that whatever is provided for in that
Article on the Executive should be adjusted to what will be approved here
with
respect to local governments.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, this should govern the matter whatever is
decided on the Article on Local Governments. So, what is important is for us
to
decide about the extent of the power of the President over local
governments.
MR. RODRIGO: The only difference is that in the Article on the Executive,
there is the phrase, as may be provided by law. It states that the President
shall exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be
provided by law and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
whereas
in this section we are dealing with now, under the Article on Local
Governments, Section 7 reads:
governments to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
MS. AQUINO: That was deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment is to eliminate that last clause
and put a period (.) after Local Governments.
MS. AQUINO: I was supportive of the motion to delete, and now I move for
the retention of this section in this Article, if it is the clear intention of the
Committee that in this provision, the contemplation is just to recognize the
mere power of oversight over an inferior body and does not exclude a
restraining authority over the supervised body. Do I understand the
Committee correctly?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: In which case, it also excludes the power of the President to
suspend or remove public officials.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.

MS. AQUINO: Or proceed with administrative complaints against them.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: In the context, therefore, of the concept of the supervisory
powers as they are generally contemplated, this section should be retained
in this
Article, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: May I point out, however, so that no lacuna of interpretation will
arise that the Presidents power of control over the Ministry of Local
Governments will continue. With respect to disciplinary measures against
members of local governments, therefore, I think the power of the Ministry of
Local Governments, which is under the control of the President of the
Philippines, will not be eliminated by this change in the relationship between
the
President and the local governments, which means the power of general
supervision over local governments.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I find that to be a dangerous interpretation
because as a settled usage in jurisprudence would go, the power to initiate
administrative complaints against local officials rightfully belongs to the
provincial boards. If it is the spirit of recognize autonomy and to
decentralize national government, then we should not fall into that kind of
interpretation.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I think local autonomy contemplates allowing all
the channels to function. But it is also correct that as one moves up the
channels of the hierarchy of government, appeals are generally addressed to
the Office of the President of the Philippines, and very rarely will any case
get to the table of the President unless on appeal. In the administrative setup
of any government, there is presumed to be a final appeal to the head of
the government.
MS. AQUINO: In that case, it holds that the general rule is that the power of
suspension and removal still rightfully belongs to the local governments, and
matters of appeal which may be in the nature of a general supervisory power
may pertain to the Office of the President, if only to clarify the
interpretation.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I agree with the interpretation of
Commissioner Aquino but those things can be provided for in the Local
Government Code.
MR. OPLE: In general, however, I think the Committee shares this

interpretation, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: May I move for a modification of the amendment of
Commissioner Bernas. Instead of deleting the last clause and ensure that
laws are faithfully
executed, I move that this particular phrase be transferred to the Article on
the Executive because this is an essential function or power of the
President. So, as would now be worded, that particular Section 17 of the
Article on the Executive would be without this last clause, although this is
essential.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I ask Commissioner Davide a question, Madam
President? Is he referring to execution of laws in general, without particularly
mentioning
local government?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that is the general law.
MR. NOLLEDO: At any rate, in the oath of the President, the President can
execute all laws of the land.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. That is why it should not be deleted but merely
transferred to Section 17 of the Proposed Article on the Executive.
THE PRESIDENT: No, but it should be removed from Section 7.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be removed from here.
THE PRESIDENT: It should be removed with the understanding that it will be a
separate sentence.
MR. NOLLEDO: It can be done.
MR. GUINGONA: I was going to support the view of Commissioner Davide that
it is not only the Presidents right but prerogative or duty under the
Constitution to see to it that laws are faithfully executed. This refers not only
to national laws but also to local laws.
I do not perceive any violation of the concept of decentralization that we
have accepted here, if we give to the President the power to see to it that
laws
are faithfully executed. The implication of the failure to give the President
that power would be the danger of creating an imperium in imperio where
we
could have a local official who refuses to implement or execute the laws
faithfully and the President unable to do anything about it.
So, I would not favor the dropping of the phrase but I would favor its
inclusion, as suggested by Commissioner Davide, in the Article on the
Executive.
Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Commissioner Azcuna invited our attention to the 1935 or 1973
Constitution that there were two powers: one, general supervision; and two,
to
see to it that laws are faithfully executed. On the second sentence of this
provision under Section 17 of the Article on the Executive, we may omit the
phrase as may be provided by law, but I would prefer the text and shall
take care that all laws be faithfully executed instead of to ensure which is
the text in the draft of the Committee, because it seems that there are really
two powers not necessarily inclusive or exclusive of each other. So that
this proposed Section 7 should read: The President of the Philippines shall
exercise general supervision over local governments AND SHALL TAKE CARE
that
THE laws be faithfully executed. That simplifies the matter, I believe. So,
Section 17 of the Article on the Executive will just state as its first
sentence: The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus and offices. The next sentence should be transposed to be Section
7
of the Article on Local Governments with the elimination of the phrase as
may be provided by law. Does the Committee look upon this suggestion
with
favor?
MR. NOLLEDO: We sympathize with the provision but we already agreed with
the Bernas amendment. The Committee believes that the Bernas
amendment is good
enough without prejudice to the amendment suggested by Commissioner
Davide because I think the intention even of the 1935 Constitution is really
to
separate the second function. They were put in only in one sentence. The
second function is implementing the presidential oath, that the President
shall
execute all the laws of the land. So, I think the Davide suggestion is welltaken.
FR. BERNAS: I would have no objection to the Davide amendment, and also
to incorporating the recommendation of Commissioner Padilla to put that in
the
Article on the Executive. But if we do that, I would suggest that we put in
Section 7 of the Article on Local Governments the specification of the
authority of local governments over interior local governments, the hierarchy.
I would suggest that if we take this out and put it in the Article on the
Executive, then we put in its place the old section from Section 4 (1), Article
XI of the 1973 Constitution which states:
functions.
It just clarifies things and establishes this clear hierarchy.
MR. NOLLEDO: Is the Gentleman presenting that as an amendment?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the whole of Section 4, Article XI of the 1973
Constitution?
FR. BERNAS: No, only the first sentence of Section 4 (1) because the second
sentence is already taken care of somewhere else, I think.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. This will be in lieu of Section 7, as worded
now?
FR. BERNAS: We move Section 7 to the Article on the Executive. Then in lieu
of the present Section 7, we put the first sentence of Section 4 (1) of the
1973 Constitution.
MR. AZCUNA: May I just inquire as to the wording of the provision in the
Article on the Executive? Would it be worded as Section 7 as worded in the
Article
on Local Governments or as originally worded minus as determined by law
under Section 17 of the Article on the Executive? So, it will read: The
President shall have control of all the ministries and general supervision over
local governments and shall take care that laws are faithfully executed.
That will be the wording of Section 17.
FR. BERNAS: I have no serious conceptual difficulty with that except that for
me, it is tautological.
MR. AZCUNA: I feel that the general supervision power should be separated
from the power to take care that the laws are faithfully executed rather than
merging the two. As worded in Section 17 of the Article on the Executive, it is
separated. We just delete the words as determined by law to remove
control by the legislature over local governments.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, in line with this, I thought the suggested
formulation of Section 17 and I do not know if this tallies with the thinking
of Commissioner Azcuna would be: The President shall have control of all
the executive departments, bureaus, and offices and shall take care that
laws
be faithfully executed. I understand that this exercise of general supervision
over all local governments is supposed to be transposed to the Article on
Local Governments or is it the reverse?
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Committee ready to give any reaction? The proposal
is to transfer Section 7 to the Article on the Executive, and in lieu thereof, to
have this first sentence of Section 4 (1), Article XI of the 1973 Constitution in
the Article on Local Governments. Is that acceptable to the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: We leave it to the body to decide, Madam President, because
as far as we are concerned, we agree with Commissioner Aquino that there
should be
a provision on supervisory powers of the President in the Article on Local

Governments.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I just inquire from Commissioner
Bernas because he is transposing Section 4 (1) of Article XI. Is it understood
that the
whole of this paragraph should be transposed?
FR. BERNAS: Only the first sentence.
MR. MAAMBONG: Not the provision on highly urbanized cities.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Bernas amendment is that Section 7 should read as
follows please correct me if I am wrong: THE PRESIDENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES SHALL
EXERCISE GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. PROVINCES
WITH RESPECT TO COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES, AND CITIES
AND MUNICIPALITIES WITH
RESPECT TO COMPONENT BARANGAYS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE ACTS OF
THEIR COMPONENT UNITS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR ASSIGNED
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS. Am I
correct?
FR. BERNAS: It embodies everything in my amendment but as to where the
first sentence will be placed, I am leaving that to the Committee. One
suggestion is
that the first sentence should go to Section 17 of the Article on the
Executive. I am willing to go along on that. But if the Committee prefers to
keep it
here, that is really not my responsibility.
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as the Committee is concerned, what I have read
should really appear on Section 7 in line with the observations of
Commissioner Aquino.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg the Gentlemans pardon?
MR. NOLLEDO: Based on what I have read, we would like to retain here as
Section 7 the provision on the supervisory powers of the President, as
amended by
Commissioner Bernas, including Section 4 (1) of the 1973 Constitution on the
hierarchical supervision of provinces and municipalities.
THE PRESIDENT: How is this to be adjusted to the provision over local
governments in the Article on the Executive?
MR. NOLLEDO: I remember, Madam President, that there was a motion filed
by Commissioner Quesada that the provisions of the Article on the Executive
should
yield to what we should agree upon here with respect to the report of the
Committee on Local Governments. We are now deciding what should be
agreed upon by
us with respect to the power of general supervision of the President over
local governments.
MR. GUINGONA: Perhaps, it would be best for us to refer to the record rather
than to our memory whether such a consensus was reached by this body.
The best
source of information would be the record, and I would submit that until we
have verified from the record, we should not act on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: But the Chair believes that the body can now decide where
the provision will be best and appropriate: should it be in the Article on Local
Governments or should it be in the Article on the Executive? I think we can
decide on it now.
MR. GUINGONA: I thought we were relying on whether there was that
consensus. In view of the statement of the Chair, I respectfully submit.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I think it is important that the Committee
call the attention of the Members of the Constitutional Commission that
there is
also a similar provision on autonomous regions in Section 3, lines 29 to 31,
page 3 of Resolution No. 470, the consolidated report of the Committee on
Local Governments, which reads:
I would like that our decision should also take into account another similar
provision appearing with respect to autonomous regions.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, if the Bernas amendment as modified by the
Committee would be voted upon, I would make a reservation to introduce at
the
proper time the clause to ensure that laws are faithfully executed in the
Article on the Executive more particularly to Section 17 thereof.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the Chair believes that what is before the Body now is
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bernas which has not been
withdrawn. I
believe that is in Section 7: The President of the Philippines shall exercise
general supervision over LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
MR. NOLLEDO: Then I will continue, Madam President: PROVINCES WITH
RESPECT TO COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES, AND CITIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES WITH
RESPECT TO COMPONENT BARANGAYS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE ACTS OF
THEIR COMPONENT UNITS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR ASSIGNED
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to Commissioner Bernas?
MR. MAAMBONG: I would like to call the attention of the Committee that the
second sentence just read was actually lumped together with Section 4 (2) of
the
1973 Constitution, which starts with: Local government units may group
themselves . . . If we include that as a second sentence of Section 7, it has
absolutely no relation at all to the power of general supervision of the
President over local governments, whereas the original formulation in the
1973
Constitution referred to states:
SECTION 4 (1) Provinces with respect to component cities and
municipalities . . .
(2) Local government units may group themselves, or consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services . . .
I am thinking that if we have to add that provision at all, we should add it to
the next section in order that it has relation to each other, because that
provision, if it will be included in the power of the President of general

supervision, will have no relation at all to the first sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, not as part of Section 7.
MR. NOLLEDO: I beg to disagree, Madam President. I think the relation is
almost direct. It concerns the hierarchical way of supervision by higher local
governments over inferior local governments. So, I think Commissioner
Bernas was correct.
FR. BERNAS: I might also add that the following section talks about groupings
which are not juridical persons. They are just various juridical entities
cooperating, but not forming a new juridical entity.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I just remind the Commission that,
according to the previous agreement, the provision on metropolitan areas
will immediately
precede what is now Section 6, which pertains to the voluntary grouping of
municipalities or cities. So, I think this interconnection between Section 6
and
what is now considered to be Section 5, namely, the Bernas amendment, is
not actually well-founded because there would be the section on
metropolitan areas
to follow immediately preceding what is now Section 6 on the grouping of
local governments.
MR. NOLLEDO: We are now in Section 7. The Ople amendment will be Section
8, and Section 9 refers to consolidation or coordination of efforts and
services.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, Madam President, the Committee believes that the Bernas
amendment should be submitted to the floor for voting.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman restate the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: The amendment is as follows: THE PRESIDENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES SHALL EXERCISE GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. PROVINCES WITH
RESPECT TO COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES, AND CITIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES WITH RESPECT TO COMPONENT BARANGAYS SHALL ENSURE
THAT THE ACTS OF THEIR

COMPONENT UNITS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR ASSIGNED POWERS
AND FUNCTIONS.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several
hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 25 votes in favor, one against and no abstention; the
So, that is the new Section 7. May we proceed now to Section 8?
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 8 is the Ople amendment, and Commissioner Ople will
be happy if I read again his well-deserved amendment. it states: THE
CONGRESS MAY
BY LAW CREATE SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, SUBJECT
TO A PLEBISCITE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11 HEREOF. THE COMPONENT
CITIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES SHALL RETAIN THEIR BASIC AUTONOMY AND SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY THAT WILL THEREBY BE CREATED SHALL BE
LIMITED TO BASIC SERVICES REQUIRING COORDINATION.
That is Section 8, the Ople amendment.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, since this has already been voted upon . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it was voted upon already.
MR. OPLE: I think the Chair may want to submit for approval the specific
location of that amendment, unless this is considered merely a renumbering
matter.
THE PRESIDENT: It was approved before. The only matter to be determined is
the particular numbering of the section. But we may just as well submit it
again
to a vote today.
approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 9, Madam President, which was formerly Section 6,
reads:
Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate
their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to
them.
This is a reproduction of the identical provision in the 1973 Constitution,
Section 9.
MS. AQUINO: I move to amend this section by adding after the word them
the words IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
MAJORITY OF THE
PEOPLE IN A PLEBISCITE CALLED FOR THAT PURPOSE which is in accordance
with the old Section 11 now being renumbered as Section 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please restate her amendment.
MS. AQUINO: After the word them, include the phrase IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST
IN A PLEBISCITE, IN
THE POLITICAL UNIT OR UNITS DIRECTLY AFFECTED.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, the provision will read as follows: Local government units
may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services and
resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS IN THE
POLITICAL UNITS
AFFECTED.
MS. AQUINO: MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN A PLEBISCITE, IN THE
POLITICAL UNIT OR UNITS DIRECTLY AFFECTED.
MR. MAAMBONG: Will the proponent yield to a question or two?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, gladly.
MR. MAAMBONG: Why should this grouping together of local government

units be submitted to a plebiscite when we are not forming a new political
unit? From
my reading of the Local Government Code, when you create or abolish a
barrio, a municipality, a city or a province that is the time for a plebiscite to
be
undertaken so that the people will be made to vote. But here it is only the
grouping of efforts, services and resources. We are not forming a new
political
unit. So, why involve the people in a plebiscite?
MS. AQUINO: I have no quarrel with Commissioner Maambong on that. In
fact, it is clear that there is no intention to vest juristic personality in
whatever
amalgam will come out of this consolidation. It is just that it assumes likewise
a quasi-juridical personality inherent in a municipal corporation. A
municipal corporation has two powers essentially: one as a public corporation
which partakes of the nature of any entity with governmental power. By that
we mean the power to enforce laws, the power of eminent domain, police
power and the power of taxation. However, it likewise assumes the powers
pertaining
to a private corporation; essentially, the personality to sue, the personality to
be sued and the personality to acquire properties whenever allowed by
law. To a certain extent, therefore, a consolidation whether this is a juristic
or a quasi-juridical personality vests in that amalgam or consolidated
body certain powers of a juridical personality. In other words, we can
appreciate it as not assuming a juridical personality but assuming the powers
pertaining thereto.
MR. MAAMBONG: Is the Commissioner saying that by this form of grouping,
we are actually creating what is known under our law on municipal
corporation or
public corporation a public quasi-corporation, as distinguished from a quasipublic corporation? In a public quasi-corporation, it is actually a public
corporation but it performs not governmental functions but private functions
usually directed towards rendering of services. Are we, therefore, creating by
this provision, or do we hope to create by this provision a public quasicorporation?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President, in the nature of that which they would
call as some kind of a developmental authority.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, if we are intending to form a public quasicorporation, then we do not need to submit it to a plebiscite for the approval
of
the voters. I cannot recall a situation where the formation of a public quasi-
corporation is submitted to a plebiscite. So, probably in the Commissioners

proposed amendment, we could stop after the phrase as may be provided
by law, if that is agreeable to the Commissioner. At any rate, that will have
to be
submitted to the Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee sympathizes with the amendment, but regrets
that it cannot accept the same unless Commissioner Aquino will end with in
accordance with law, without submitting the same to a plebiscite because it
seems to me that Section 9 contemplates a temporary aggrupation.
MS. AQUINO: Not necessarily temporary but a voluntary aggrupation.
MR. NOLLEDO: A voluntary aggrupation, yes. To my mind, this will open again
the avenue towards the formation of autonomous regions if we submit it to a
plebiscite and give it some permanent . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Aquino insist on her amendment?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, my concern is the very vague, allencompassing and all-embracing interpretation that could be read into the
phrase for
purposes commonly beneficial to them. However, if we can put for the
record the essential delimitations of that concept, then I would concede to
the
deletion of the last portion of my amendment and stop after in accordance
with law.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am agreeable.
FR. BERNAS: My reading of this is that it encourages local governments to
experiment some kind of cooperation among themselves, and if from the
very
beginning we require a law governing them before they can do it, it would
seem to discourage the experimentation. It would seem to me that even if
we do
not say as may be provided by law, it would still be within the power of the
legislature eventually to pass some kind of law regulating whatever is
happening after some experimentation. But if from the very beginning we
say as may be provided by law, then the intent would seem to be that the
local
governments will have to wait for legislation to be passed before they can
even begin to experiment on these things.
MS. AQUINO: Actually, this Representation contemplates it in the nature of a
general enabling act, for the creation of some kind of a developmental
authority or an amalgam of local governments to precisely undertake the
purposes provided for in what is now Section 9.
FR. BERNAS: But would it not be better for us to wait a little bit after some
experimentation on this before trying to formulate some kind of enabling
act?
There is nothing to prevent the legislature later on from formulating a law
governing this. Right now, it would seem to me to better leave them free to
seek ways of doing this unhampered by preexisting legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Aquino say?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I would insist on my amendment to insert in
accordance with law because whether we like it or not, in political dynamics
any
form of consolidation, amalgamation or aggroupment assumes a political
color which can create a bailiwick for a particular persuasion or particular
political party. The intention, therefore, of the amendment is to confine it
within the modicum of statutory restraints in the nature of a general enabling
act.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will Commissioner Aquino yield to a clarificatory
question?
Since the Commissioner mentioned a regional development authority, will
the regional development council found in Section 10 be an appropriate
mechanism?
MS. AQUINO: No, not necessarily. I just mentioned the term developmental
authority at the instance of the suggestion of some of those who appeared
in the
Legislative Committee meeting; it was just a nomenclature. It is not
necessarily intended to define the powers.

MR. NOLLEDO: May I ask a question.
MR. NOLLEDO: Suppose there is no implementing statute because the
Commissioner said in accordance with law? Can this provision, without an
implementing
statute, be self-implementing?
MS. AQUINO: No.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I just wanted to call the attention of the Commission to the
fact that this provision was actually adopted from the 1973 Constitution and
notwithstanding the lapse of some time since this came into force and effect,
we have not heard of local governments grouping themselves for their
common
beneficial purposes except for one brief experiment and that was in Metro
Manila. I understand that no one was happy about that experiment and so
that
provided the basis for a decree creating the Metro Manila Commission. I think
that the concern of Commissioner Bernas that local governments should
start
experimenting with this innovative form of regrouping for common benefit
will be better served if there is a general enabling act that will provide
confidence to mayors and their municipal councils that there is, in fact, an
implementing law that suggests a more specific structure under which this
form
of cooperation to which we all agree is very commendable and should be
attempted could exist. And so that explains why the Committee agrees to
the
amendment of Commissioner Aquino which, in effect, would provide for a
general enabling act to give more substance and meaning to this otherwise
unutilized
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, just one question to clear up a point.
The proponent mentioned that the intended vehicle may be a quasi-public
corporation, but that not a limiting term. What I mean is, they could form in
some
other way, not in any way limited to a quasi-public corporation; they may
form an association which may be registerable other than a quasi-public
corporation for the same purpose.
MS. AQUINO: That would have to be covered precisely by the general
enabling act being contemplated in this amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, but I was just thinking that if we really define it as a
quasi-public corporation and nothing else that may be limiting to Congress.
MS. AQUINO: But that is not simply possible.
MR. MAAMBONG: So, the answer is, it does not have to be a quasi-public
corporation. It could be another form, another vehicle for this purpose.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, did I hear the proponent say that in the
absence of such an enabling law, the municipalities will not be able to do
anything?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President. On the one hand, it could be perceived
the way the Commissioner said it. It could stifle initiative. On the other hand,
in the context of Commissioner Oples comment, this could precisely vest
legal fiat on any effort or initiative that would be set in this trend.
FR. BERNAS: But if we put in accordance with law, would the Commissioner
at least agree to the interpretation that even before that law is passed, they
may begin a cooperative effort?
MS. AQUINO: I am concerned about a political adventure which would
assume a partisan political color. I am very aware of the experience of the
creation of
the Metro Manila Commission. It may be an overreaction, but if we could
make it clear for purposes of interpretation that this is not essentially a
self-executing provision, however, it does not intend to delimit or inhibit
initiatives that would lead to the creation of amalgam or consolidated bodies,
then I would concede to that kind of an interpretation.
MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Aquino restate her amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: I will read on behalf of Commissioner Aquino.
As amended, Section 9 should now read. Local government units may group
themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources
for
purposes commonly beneficial to them IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
MR. BENGZON: What is now the interpretation if this proposal is passed? Will
it not prohibit political units and municipalities from starting an initiative
on their own?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: According to the interpretation of Commissioner Bernas?
MS. AQUINO: According to the interpretation of Commissioner Bernas.
MR. BENGZON: So, that is the sense of the Commissioner, as read into the
record.
MS. AQUINO: I have conceded to that interpretation.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW does not deter
them from exercising their initiative and grouping themselves, is that
correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the proposed amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, the Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Shall we proceed to Section 10?
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 10 states:
The Congress may provide for regional development councils composed of

local government officials with such adequate powers as may be prescribed
by law,
designed to accelerate the economic and social growth of the local
government units.
Actually, Madam President, this was suggested by Commissioner Monsod in
order to bring down powers to local government officials.
MR. DAVIDE: I have some amendments on this particular section.
On line 16, change the word Congress to PRESIDENT; and then change the
word may to SHALL.
On line 17, after the word councils, insert OR OTHER SIMILAR BODIES.
On lines 18 and 19, delete with such adequate powers as may be prescribed
by law and substitute AND REPRESENTATIVES OF MINISTRIES AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE
GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN
THE REGIONS FOR PURPOSES OF EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
DECENTRALIZATION.
Before the word accelerate, insert STRENGTHEN THE AUTONOMY OF THE
UNITS THEREIN AND TO, and on the same line, after growth, insert AND
DEVELOPMENT.
On line 20, delete local government and after units, insert IN THE
REGION.
So, the entire section will read: The PRESIDENT SHALL provide for regional
development councils OR OTHER SIMILAR BODIES composed of local
government
officials AND REPRESENTATIVES OF MINISTRIES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE
GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN
THE REGIONS FOR PURPOSES OF
EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRALIZATION to STRENGTHEN THE
AUTONOMY OF THE UNITS THEREIN AND TO accelerate the economic and
social growth AND DEVELOPMENT
of the units IN THE REGION.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will Commissioner Davide yield to a question?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Madam President.

MR. OPLE: This section speaks of regional development councils and, as
amended by the Commissioner now, such other bodies as may be formed.
Does not the
term regional development councils actually refer to the ongoing regional
development councils utilized by the NEDA as its regional offices under
existing arrangements right now?
MR. DAVIDE: At the beginning, that could be. That is why we added the
phrase OR OTHER SIMILAR BODIES because later, the President might decide
to establish
other regional bodies than those presently existing.
MR. OPLE: The function of the RDCs, as they are known by that acronym, is
mainly to participate in a planning process from the province through the
region.
I think they are also utilized as a medium for proposing allocations of
infrastructure funds set aside in the budget for a region but which must be
still
allocated to the component provinces and cities of that region under the
parameters established by the Ministry of Public Works and Highways and
the NEDA
jointly. So, it is in that context of the function now exercised by the regional
development councils as the regional unit of the NEDA that I want to ask
whether in the view of the proponent of the amendment this has anything to
do with the strengthening of local autonomy.
MR. DAVIDE: It will certainly contribute. That is why we added an additional
function, another purpose administrative decentralization to strengthen
the
autonomy of units therein, and to accelerate the economic and social growth
and development of the units and the region itself.
In other words, we have sought to introduce the concept of administrative
decentralization as distinguished from political decentralization. The two
must
come together or must work hand-in-hand to promote the socioeconomic
development not only of the component units but, to a greater degree, the
region.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, if the function of these RDCs is a planning
function including proposals to allocate certain sums of public funds for
infrastructure projects within a region subject to the approval not only of the
NEDA in Manila but also of the different ministries of the national
government, I do not see how this directly correlates with administrative
decentralization and the strengthening of local autonomy, unless the

proponent
now wishes to enlarge, augment and perhaps make more permanent the
functions of the regional development councils.
MR. MONSOD: May I ask for recognition, Madam President. I may be able to
explain some of the issues that have been raised.
MR. MONSOD: It is my understanding that since the new government took
over, the functions of the regional development councils are in the process of
being
enlarged. Unlike in previous years where it is a top-to-bottom planning
process, it is now a bottom-up planning process. What is happening now in
the
regional development councils consultations with local officials and also
nongovernmental institutions or organizations is that they are the ones
being
asked from which projects and programs to flesh out the framework for
economic development. The second part of that is supposed to be the
coordinating and
monitoring process on how these projects and programs are being
implemented, with the private sector itself being a part of the monitoring
process. So,
both a top-to-bottom and bottom-up process is going on in the regional
development councils since the assumption of the new government.
MR. OPLE: May I ask Commissioner Monsod whether in the enlargement of
the functions of the regional development councils, decentralization of
administrative services is included.
MR. MONSOD: I believe that that is one of the expansions of functions or
qualifications that they are working at in order to implement and concretize
decentralization of government functions.
MR. OPLE: It is understood, of course, that the regional development council
is based on so-called regions that are not invested with the authority and
aura of municipal corporations, am I correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, because it is essentially a coordinative
body. But I believe that what would come out of the new section and I am
with
Commissioner Davide on this is that there should be a better definition of
this as the experience accumulates so that it will evolve truly into a more
decentralized organization or administration of government.
MR. OPLE: The regions are not recognized in the enumeration of political
subdivisions. But does the Commissioner think that through the process of
strengthening regional planning and consultations, they might rise someday
to the level of a political subdivision?
MR. MONSOD: That is possible, Madam President, and the reason we have
some information on this is that there are several nongovernmental
organizations that
are discussing with the ministries their possible role in the future as
nongovernmental organizations. In the process, they are already
participating and
being consulted in this bottom-up process.
MR. FOZ: I would like to ask a question or two of the proponent of the
amendment.
I notice that the word Congress under the Commissioners amendment has
been substituted by the word PRESIDENT in the style of the sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, for the reason that when it comes to administrative
decentralization or the thrust of the proposal, it should really be a
presidential
function. In other words, we should give the President greater flexibility. If we
leave it to Congress, Congress may not provide it at all. That is why I
said in my proposal, among others, that we should change the word may
to SHALL.
MR. FOZ: Does the Gentleman not think that even without a provision, as the
Gentleman would amend it, the President has the power to create, by
executive
order, certain administrative bodies or executive bodies that would achieve
the purpose of the Gentlemans amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: It can be left to his discretion; but in line with the policy we are
adopting that is, greater local autonomy and broader administrative
decentralization of executive functions I would propose, as the Committee
itself had originally proposed, that that should be a mandate so it could
really be organized.
MR. FOZ: But per information given by Commissioner Monsod that such
things are now going on and in a more creative manner as a matter of
fact, he
mentioned the bottom-up process of consultation and monitoring of plans or

planning of projects does the Gentleman not think that the President is
within
his power to pursue the idea even without any specific constitutional
provision in the tenor of the proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: If we provide this particular section, the President could have a
stronger basis for his action and, therefore, he would have the greater
courage to pursue the objectives. He or she will have a constitutional basis
for his or her acts.
MR. FOZ: On the other hand, if that is the purpose of the Gentleman, does he
not think that Congress should be involved in this so that the hand of the
President is better strengthened in carrying out the objectives of this
provision?
MR. DAVIDE: We know pretty well how the work in Congress will be; so the
political issue might be injected into this beautiful proposal if it would be the
act of Congress itself.
MR. FOZ: But just the same, the President may have to turn to Congress for
specific proposals to carry out his objectives in line with this amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: There is nothing that can prevent Congress to enact a law or a
resolution making the necessary proposals as additional inputs to the
Presidents act in providing for the regional development councils or similar
bodies.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, in support of the amendment of Commissioner Davide, would
the Gentleman be amenable to strengthening this proviso even further by
specifically providing that such councils should provide or whatever term
the Gentleman might want to use consultative mechanisms with the
different
sectors of the region in the formulation, planning, implementation and
monitoring of projects and programs? As stated by Commissioner Monsod,
they are
beginning to do this bottom-up approach. I remember that when we go
around the different regions discussing and consulting with the NEDA, the
complaint of
the NEDA always was that they could never get the people in the region to
participate in the implementation of their programs and they were very

happy when
the private sector would come in and bring them together. So, as
Commissioner Monsod said, they are beginning to do this. Would it not help if
we also
constitutionalize this consultative mechanism or is that already included in
the term as may be prescribed by law?
MR. DAVIDE: It is already included in the composition of the regional
development councils or other similar bodies. Among those who will
compose these
would be nongovernmental organizations. So, they are there already.
MS. NIEVA: So, that will include the consultation . . .
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, it will include everything consultation, monitoring, and
others.
MS. NIEVA: It will include the whole process. If that is understood, then I
would not insist further.
Thank you.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would Commissioner Davide entertain a question and a
possible amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: We would gladly entertain and consider the proposed
amendment.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: There are efforts now by the private sector in certain
regions and provinces to organize themselves; they call themselves private
or
provincial development councils. These councils think they could work on
their own and cooperate with the existing regional development councils. I
would
agree that although there is an effort now on the present RDCs to expand,
their experience in the past may prevent the desired aim of closer publicprivate
coordination.
I think the concepts of bottom-up and participatory communication have
been practiced over the past 10 years, even if unsuccessful. But nonetheless,
in
most of these RDCs and municipal development councils, only the elite
participated. It was a government effort with very little private participation. I
think this is what has encouraged many members of the private sector to
organize. We are aware of certain regions like Negros which have active
private
development councils.
As a matter of fact, the present officer-in-charge in Negros is relying primarily
on the private development council as his main arm in going about his
planning in the government. The amendment that I would like to propose as
amendment to this provision reads: THE STATE SHALL FURTHER ENCOURAGE
THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS WHICH WILL
COOPERATE WITH THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS.
MR. DAVIDE: If this section will be approved, the President, in the exercise of
his discretion, would consider the inclusion in the development councils or
similar bodies members from nongovernmental organizations because it is
already included in my proposal. So, the private development council may
either be
represented in the council itself at the instance of the President. Besides, I
am sure that in the light of the answer given by Commissioner Monsod and
also in the light of the answer that we had given to the question of
Commissioner Nieva, all the sectors will be consulted by these development
councils.
The main problem is that under the Commissioners proposal, I understand
that in the Article on Social Justice, the role of peoples organizations has
been
recognized, and adequate consultative mechanisms have already been
provided for. So, they can complement each other.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think this amendment is made in the light of the
concept of subsidiarity or private initiative. Here, the initiative will come from
the private agencies rather than from the government taking the primary
responsibility in coordinating with the private sector.
I think the idea of more decentralization and less centralized planning,
lessening the role of NEDA and the government role in planning is to let the
private agencies be the main engine of growth in a worthwhile concept.
In the light of these and as we now can showcase our experiences of private
initiative in organizing itself for problem-solving in cooperation with the
regional development councils, I propose this amendment.
The concept is not for the RDCs to absorb private councils but for the latter
to organize themselves and to link their efforts with RDCs.
MR. DAVIDE: I would consider the very important provisions on peoples
organizations in the Article on Social Justice, which were originally Sections
19
and 20, the main proponent of which is Commissioner Garcia.
I take it to mean that these independent regional development councils, at
the instance of private initiative, can come in easily under what have been
approved originally as Sections 19 and 20 if I remember correctly in the
Article on Social Justice.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: That is true, but we would like to institutionalize these
private development councils so that they are able to work together with the
existing government RDCs.
MR. DAVIDE: As worded, all nongovernmental organizations are taken into
account in the proposal, not only that they can work side by side with, or
even be
members of the regional development councils or any other similar bodies.
But we will give the discretion to the President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just say that the manifestations of
Commissioner Rosario Braid are certainly meritorious, but she must also
remember
that there are other bodies like the peoples economic councils which are
also being organized.
So, there are many nongovernmental bodies that will play a part in this. We
need not focus on the private development councils because there are many
types
of nongovernmental organizations.
To constitutionalize private development councils individually rather than
subsumed under nongovernmental organizations would really veer away
from the
concept of the regional development councils, with private sector
participation because, after all, what is being talked about here are
government
expenditures, and the private sector even under our Constitution is free. It
has the initiative, and it has only a coordinative function with the
government. Also, as Commissioner Davide said, they are subsumed under

nongovernmental organizations.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I will withdraw my amendment as long as the concept
of coordinating and equal role of private organizations is included in this
amendment.
MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I have a clarification. Under the
present proposed amendment, what is the exact composition of these
regional
development councils because the draft I have here from Commissioner
Davide only mentions of local government officials?
Although I have very limited experience in regional development councils, I
notice that if a regional development council is only composed of local
government officials, it could not succeed in its work without the support of
the heads of line ministries within the regions. For example, in the Regional
Development Council of Region VII, the support staff is actually the NEDA of
Region VII. So, I would like to know the exact composition as proposed.
MR. DAVIDE: Based on the section, after government officials, the following
were added: AND REPRESENTATIVES OF MINISTRIES AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE
GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
WITHIN THE REGIONS.
MR. MAAMBONG: Would it be all right if we use the word HEADS instead of
REPRESENTATIVES because when we say HEADS OF MINISTRIES WITHIN
THE REGION, we
are actually referring to regional directors who, under the present
composition of the regional development councils, are actually members of
the regional
development councils?
Just for the record, from my understanding, the regional development
councils now are composed of the provincial governors, the city mayors, the
regional
directors, the president of the municipal mayors league, and private

individuals who are experts in their fields.
So, it would be more in keeping if we say HEADS OF MINISTRIES WITHIN THE
REGIONS, with specific reference to regional directors of line ministries. Is
that all right with the Gentleman?
MR. DAVIDE: So, it will now read: government officials AND HEADS OF
MINISTRIES AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE
REGIONS.
We accept the amendment.
MR. RAMA: What does the Committee say before we vote?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee would like to submit the same to the body.
THE PRESIDENT: The important matter here is, whether we will change
Congress to PRESIDENT. In principle, there is nothing controversial, I
believe,
except in whom to vest this power the Congress or the President. Are we
ready to vote on this?
MR. NOLLEDO: We have some misgivings.
MR. RAMA: We are ready to vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide read the entire section, as
amended.
MR. DAVIDE: As proposed, it will now read as follows: The PRESIDENT SHALL
provide for regional development councils OR OTHER SIMILAR BODIES
composed of
local government officials AND HEADS OF MINISTRIES AND OTHER
GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE REGIONS
FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRALIZATION to STRENGTHEN
THE AUTONOMY OF THE UNITS THEREIN AND TO accelerate the economic
and social growth AND
DEVELOPMENT of the units IN THE REGION.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this proposed amendment,
hand.)
MR. DAVIDE: For the record, Madam President, the following are the
coauthors of the amendment: Commissioners Monsod, Bengzon and
Maambong.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that we proceed to Section 11.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, as far as Section 11 is concerned, I only
have one manifestation to make which I reserved when I presented the
amendment to
Section 1. On Section 11, the word barrio should be changed likewise to
BARANGAY.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the word barrio?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is referring to the old Section 11, which is
now Section 14.
MR. MAAMBONG: I was referring to the original draft. I am referring to Section
14 now.
THE PRESIDENT: May we inquire from the Chairman what is Section 11 now?
Is this the original section?
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 11, Madam President, reads: Each local government
unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy
taxes,
fees and charges subject to such guidelines as Congress may provide. A local
government unit shall likewise have the power to levy and collect charges or
contributions unique, distinct and exclusive to it.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a proposal to reduce the original Sections 8, 9 and 10
which are now Sections 11, 12 and 13. The amendment reads: SEC. 11.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE ITS OWN
SOURCES OF REVENUES, AND TO LEVY, IMPOSE, AND COLLECT TAXES, FEES
AND CHARGES, SUBJECT TO THE
GUIDELINES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW BUT CONSISTENT WITH THE
BASIC POLICY OF AUTONOMY FOR SUCH UNITS, WHICH SHALL ACCRUE
EXCLUSIVELY TO SUCH UNITS.
SECTION 12. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHALL HAVE AN EQUITABLE AND JUST
SHARE, AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY LAW, IN THE NATIONAL TAXES, WHICH
SHALL BE PERIODICALLY AND
AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED TO THEM, AND IN TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES
IMPOSED AND COLLECTED FROM OR OTHER PROCEEDS OF THE
EXPLOITATION, EXPLORATION, UTILIZATION
AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
AREAS.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, the Gentleman deleted the second sentence of
now Section 11.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, for the reason that it is already included in the authority to
create its own sources of revenues, and to levy, impose and collect taxes,
fees and charges.
MR. NOLLEDO: The second sentence, Madam President, is not subject to the
guidelines as the Congress may provide. I find some superfluities with
respect to
the general rule on the levy of taxes, fees and charges. As far as I am
concerned, the provisions should be separated from each other in order to
recognize
the importance of each provision especially Section 13, which was based on
an Ople resolution.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that is already included.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee would like to study the
amendment further.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, copies have already been distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the Committee is not ready to react on the amendment
this afternoon or does the Committee need time?
MR. NOLLEDO: Because we are objecting to the deletion of the second

sentence of Section 11. That deletion would result in the disregard of
customs and
traditions existing in various indigenous communities.
MR. DAVIDE: If the proposal cannot be acted on yet, I have an amendment
for the original Section 11, which is now Section 14. On line 8, page 3, delete
the
words political unit or so that the line will only read: units directly
affected.
MR. FOZ: I have an amendment affecting Section 14. This would involve just
a transposition of the section to make it follow Section 2 because Section 14
talks of creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundaries of
province, city, municipality or barangay. Since it involves changes in the
boundaries of local government units, this provision is more directly related
to Section 2 of the draft article. So, logically it should follow Section 2,
perhaps as a new section because Section 2 is already long as it is.
Therefore, the amendment is just to transpose Section 14 to make it Section
3, Madam
President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Is the Gentleman referring to the original Section 2, because
the present Section 2 is the Padilla amendment? The Gentleman must be
referring
to the original Section 2 which is now Section 3.
MR. FOZ: I am referring to that provision regarding the enactment of a local
government code.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is now Section 3.
MR. FOZ: Then with that numbering, Section 14 should be transposed after
Section 3, so it should be Section 4.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee has no objection to that amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: But before it is transposed, I request the deletion of the words
political unit or on line 8 so that the line will read: units directly
affected.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I object to the deletion of the word
political. I can live with the deletion of unit or but not the word
political.
MR. DAVIDE: I agree, as modified. We retain political so it will only read
political units directly affected.
Commissioner Davide? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
Is there any objection to the transfer after Section 3? (Silence) The Chair
MR. PADILLA: I am going back to Section 11, originally Section 8, with regard
to the power to levy taxes. I notice that the Committee changed the word
limitations as provided in Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution to
guidelines.
I suppose the proposed change is in line with more local autonomy. I am in
favor of more local autonomy but in considering or granting the power to tax,
some cases state that the power to tax includes the power to destroy. Does
not the Gentleman believe that in addition to guidelines, we should
reinstate
the word limitations because guidelines is sort of a prospective directive?
It does not give the Congress any power to revise or reverse some actions
that may be taken by the political units in the exercise of their power of
taxation. For example, there may be more taxes imposed by local units, and
the
Congress may not be able to prescribe certain reasonable limitations. The
Ministry of Finance may be against the imposition of certain taxes that may
be
considered inimical not only to the economic expansion of the region but
even to that of the national economy. The Congress, and even the executive,
will
have no authority or power to regulate nor limit this very extensive power of
taxation.
My suggestion is to also use limitations as Congress may prescribe.

MR. NOLLEDO: The use of the word guidelines is in favorable reaction to
the requests of the League of Governors and City Mayors when, through the
courtesy of Commissioner Calderon, I met them at Aberdeen Court. They said
that P.D. No. 231, which was promulgated by Mr. Marcos, authorizing local
governments to levy taxes is full of limitations and restrictive provisions that
the power to tax local governments is, in effect, negated. In fact, Mr.
Marcos enumerated in Section 5 if my memory serves me right the
taxes that local governments cannot impose. Their hands are tied in
imposing local
taxes, fees and charges. So, they asked me to present their plea to this
Commission to just use the word guidelines. This means that the word
limitations is anathema and will deny them the effective decentralization
they are clamoring for. Madam President, I think this question is terribly
important that this should be presented tomorrow morning so that the other
Commissioners may be able to ponder upon them meticulously.
MR. PADILLA: I have no objection because this is quite important. Of course,
from the point of view of local executives, they would want more plenary
powers of taxation, being a very important and very delicate power which
may have far-reaching effects.
MR. NOLLEDO: The power of taxation is subject to well-settled limitations
that they must be for public purposes, uniform and must not be confiscatory.
We
can enter them into the record to be observed by local governments in the
imposition of local taxes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for adjournment of the session until
morning.
It was 7:07 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 60
OPENING OF SESSION
session.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
led by the Honorable Alberto M.K. Jamir.
PRAYER
MR. JAMIR: Let us pray.
Merciful God, we approach the end of our pilgrimage in search of a
constitution which will embody the highest ideals and aspirations of our
people with
increasing unease. While we, all of us, are sincere in our efforts to apply the
proper solutions to the pressing problems of our country, we find ourselves
divided in the manner of solving them. There are those amongst us who
would channel our countrys course along lines that are in keeping with and
respectful of the rights of others. There are those, however, who prefer a
different path by dangling before our peoples eyes a hope for economic
emancipation without regard to its effects upon others.
In such a time as this, we implore Thy divine guidance that we may avoid
creating an unattainable Utopia which, in the end, will only disillusion our
people and thereby increase their discontentment. We beg of Thee to show
us the way so that no seed may find a place in the Constitution we are
making
which may one day be the cause of a fratricidal class struggle among our
countrymen, so that this beloved land may not be drenched with the blood
and tears
of its own children.
It is inevitable that one of these precepts would fail to find acceptance.
Should this come to pass, show us, O Lord, how to bear the resulting
disappointment in good grace. Keep us together in spite of our differences in
outlook, so that we can continue to fashion a constitution which will come
from Thy hands, through ours, that our people may have a vibrant and living
charter to guide them in their journey through peace and progress

throughout
the ages. Amen.
ROLL CALL
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Absent
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Absent
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present *
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Absent
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present *
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present


yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
yesterdays session.
motion is approved.
of Business.
motion is approved.
Report, the President making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Herminio H. Cacanindin, Provincial Secretary,
transmitting Resolution No. 70 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of La Union,
declaring/embodying the opposition of the Province of La Union against the
storage of nuclear armaments in the Philippines.
Principles.
Letter from Ms. Joanna K. Cario of Bontoc, Mountain Province, transmitting a

resolution signed by one thousand one hundred eighty-nine (1,189)
Tinggians
and Bontoks of the Cordillera, calling for an autonomous region and respect
for ancestral land rights, among others.
Letter from Mr. Simeon R. Ventura urging the Constitutional Commission to
consider the following issues: (a) abolition of the CHDF; (b) agrarian reform;
(c) allocation of seats in the bicameral legislative body; (d) autonomy for the
Cordilleras and our Muslim brothers; and (e) American military bases.
Communication from Dr. Victor A. de la Cruz, Filamer Christian College, Roxas
City, and three others, upholding the inviolability of the separation of the
Church and State.
Letter from Ms. Phyllis Zaballero and Ms. Maria Isabel Ongpin of the Alliance
of Women Towards Action and Reform (AWARE), proposing inclusion in the
Constitution the following provision: The State recognizes the right of
women to equal treatment with men in all spheres of civil, political,
economic,
social and cultural life.
Principles.
Letter from Minister Candu I. Muarip of the Ministry of Muslim Affairs and
Cultural Communities, transmitting two resolutions of the Zamboanga del
Norte
Muslim Association, to wit: Resolution No. 02-86 urging inclusion of a
provision in the Constitution recognizing the existence and establishment of
the
sultanate as a form of sociocultural and political organization in Regions IX
and XII; and Resolution No. 04-86 urging inclusion in the Constitution of a
provision recognizing Arabic as one of the basic Filipino languages in
Southern Philippines and authorizing and encouraging the teaching thereof in
both
public and private schools and the same to be regulated by the national
government
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 39 on Proposed Resolution No. 542, prepared jointly
by the Committee on Social Justice and Committee on Human Resources,
entitled:
ARTICLE ON FAMILY RIGHTS,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 272.
Sponsored by Hon. Nieva, Villacorta, Gascon, Uka, Tadeo, Garcia, Lerum, Tan,
Bennagen, Bengzon, Jr., Rodrigo, Guingona, Rigos, Rosario Braid and Treas.
Continuation
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the consideration of Proposed Resolution
No. 470 on the Article on Local Governments.
motion is approved.

Local Governments to please occupy the front table.
MR. RAMA: For purposes of clarification for the record, Proposed Resolution
No. 470 is a consolidated report coming from Proposed Resolution Nos. 470
and
511 of the Committee on Local Governments.
In view of the fact that we have some Muslim visitors from Mindanao who
have been here for days to listen to the deliberation on the autonomous
regions and
to know the fate of this Article, I move that we defer consideration of the first
sections of the Article on Local Governments, and move over to the
section under the title Autonomous Regions.
THE PRESIDENT: What will be deferred actually is only the consideration of
about two or three provisions of Part 1.
MR. RAMA: Two or three provisions but it will take sometime, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Chairman say?
MR. NOLLEDO: As Chairman of the Committee, I would like the Floor Leader
to know that there are only very few provisions left on the first part of our
report. Besides, Commissioners Alonto, Abubakar and Bennagen who are
highly competent on several aspects of the second part of our report are not
yet here.
So I object to the motion
MR. RAMA: For that reason, Madam President, I withdraw the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: So we will proceed with the continuation of the
consideration of Part 1 of the report. Is the Chairman ready with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yesterday we were considering a proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide consolidating certain sections. Is that correct?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Commissioner Padilla would like to add the
words AND LIMITATIONS to guidelines.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Madam President, I made the observation that in the
previous Constitutions, the word limitations is used. However, the word
limitations was substituted in the committee report by the word
guidelines. I suggested that we add after the word guidelines the words
AND
LIMITATIONS. I stated that while we agree to give political subdivisions local
autonomy and, perhaps, increase the same, we must be careful that the
power
to tax by local governments may not be without limitation because it is said
that the power to tax may include the power to destroy. Local autonomy is
intended for the purpose of giving local subdivisions more authority to
promote general welfare and to solve their peculiar problems by allowing
them
discretion and even jurisdiction to adopt measures for the common good
within their territorial jurisdictions, but an unlimited jurisdiction or unlimited
power of taxation without limitations by Congress may be dangerous. It may
not foment or promote the common weal. It may be resorted to by some
local
executives as an arbitrary means to exact more contributions by way of
levies, taxes, fees, and others to the detriment of the general public. Hence, I
have no objection to the word guidelines but I would prefer that we retain
the word LIMITATIONS also.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee deeply regrets that it
cannot accept the amendment of the honorable Vice-President for the
following reasons:
By adding LIMITATIONS to guidelines, we will unduly restrict the local
power to tax. In yesterdays session, I manifested before the honorable
Commission that this recommended provision of the Committee is in
favorable reaction to the unanimous request of the members of the League
of Governors and
City Mayors who appointed Governor Melanio Singson as their spokesman,
asking the Committee to please delete the word LIMITATIONS in view of the
many
limitations set forth in P.D. No. 231, the Local Tax Code, which practically
negated the power of local governments to tax. So I think I am echoing the
urgent request of the governors and the city mayors before this honorable
Commission.
Madam President, that dictum of 1803 of Chief Justice Marshall that the
power to tax includes the power to destroy is misinterpreted by some
lawyers. As
far as I am concerned and as a professor of taxation, it simply means that as

long as the tax law is legal, then the taxpayer cannot evade the payment of
taxes on the ground that payment thereof will render his business inutile or
will result in his impoverishment.
In one recent case, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, speaking through
Chief Justice Fernando, said that the dictum of Chief Justice Marshall was
practically overruled by Justice Frankfurter in the case of Graves v. New York,
306, US 466. That remark of Chief Justice Marshall was called by Justice
Frankfurter as an unfortunate remark characterized as a flourish of rhetoric
attributed to the intellectual passion of the times, allowing the free use of
absolutes. This is not merely to emphasize that it is not and there cannot be
such a constitutional mandate. Justice Frankfurter could rightfully conclude
the web of unreality spun from Marshalls famous dictum which was brushed
away by one stroke of Mr. Justice Holmes pen that the power to tax is not
the
power to destroy while this Court sits.
And so, Madam President, I do not believe that if we just put guidelines
there, the local executives can impose taxes that are unnecessary or beyond
the
capacity of the taxpayer to pay because there are settled limitations
recognized in all republican governments that the power to tax shall be
subject to
certain conditions; namely, that the tax must be for a public purpose; that it
must be uniform within a locality; that it must not infringe upon accepted
national economic guidelines; and that it must not be confiscatory. Those
principles are deeply imbedded in every constitutional government.
And so, I plead to the Members of the Commission to please hear the plea of
the governors and the city mayors who are unanimous in deleting the word
LIMITATIONS and instead use the word guidelines.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Padilla yield to a question?
MR. PADILLA: I was going to make some remarks, but I will yield.
MR. OPLE: The power of taxation under a rule of law also brings with it
certain principles that may not be denied, including the principle of taxation
for
a public purpose and uniformity of standards.
When Commissioner Padilla proposes the use of LIMITATIONS in addition to
guidelines, is he implying that it would more clearly guarantee that these
principles of taxation are observed?
MR. PADILLA: We have a rule in the 1935 Constitution, Section 22 (1) thereof,
that the rule of taxation shall be uniform, and this same principle was
followed in Section 17 (1) of the 1973 Constitution with the addition: and
equitable. In other words, it is uniform and equitable. The latter section
also states about adopting a progressive system of taxation. This is the
power of the legislative department for national taxes. It is natural for the
executives of local governments, governors and mayors to claim that they
exercise the power of taxation that is really delegated to them by the
Congress
and the Constitution. If this power of taxation by the local units is in
accordance with this standard of being uniform and equitable and even
progressive, then there would be no problem. But when local executives are
given, through their municipal councils or provincial boards, the power of
taxation without limitations, that means should they disregard this basic
principle not only of being uniform and equitable but also of being
progressive,
then there is a danger that local units will not only overtax the people but
even duplicate many national internal revenue taxes. And that will be a
burden
to the people.
MR. OPLE: Will the Committee object to spelling out these same principles of
uniformity, equitable and progressive standards in an appropriate place in
the
Article on Local Governments? I remember that yesterday the Chairman of
the Committee, Commissioner Nolledo, said that he could entertain an
amendment
which would make these rules explicit to modify the word guidelines in lieu
of LIMITATIONS. Does Commissioner Nolledo confirm this?
MR. NOLLEDO: I have no objection if the amendments are presented to us.
FR. BERNAS: May I just address a few questions to the Committee?

FR. BERNAS: I understand the concern of Commissioner Padilla, and at the
same time, however, I appreciate the need for making use of the word
guidelines
in order to give real taxation autonomy to the local government. But would it
be possible for the Committee to specify areas of taxation where Congress
can
only give guidelines and areas of taxation where Congress may impose
limitations? Would that be possible?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible. For example, in the case of some businesses,
taxes are imposed by the National Internal Revenue Code. Local
governments may
impose the same, subject to limitations set forth by law because there will be
two taxing powers in that case. But there are areas where local governments
have exclusive authority, like the imposition of license fees where they may
be subject merely to guidelines.
FR. BERNAS: Would it be too much to ask the Committee to specify areas
where only guidelines will be required?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would say it is really too much for the Committee to do that
because of the many technicalities involved in taxation. If we do that, we
might unwittingly put undue limitations upon the local power to tax. So as far
as I am concerned, I would stick to the original proposal of the Committee.
Guidelines may constitute also some reasonable limitations.
MR. PADILLA: Regulatory fees which will pay for the cost of public services
are perfectly in order. But there are times when local governments would
impose
a repetition of the real estate brokers tax already provided in the National
Internal Revenue Code. So there may be duplications. The real estate tax is
mainly a local tax and it provides for certain rates of taxation based on
assessments. Most of these accrue to the local government as a local tax.
But if
there is no limitation, say, the Provincial Board or the City Council of Manila
or Quezon City would impose an additional one percent tax, then that is
double taxation. And increased taxation would be an additional burden on

real estate owners and on the people.
MR. NOLLEDO: To abbreviate the proceedings, will the Vice-President and
Commissioner Ople be amenable if I recommend the term REASONABLE
LIMITATIONS and
then delete the word guidelines?
MR. PADILLA: The term REASONABLE LIMITATIONS would be better than
just guidelines because the limitations must really be reasonable.
MR. NOLLEDO: Instead of setting forth also the set of limitations which are
recognized in every republican form of government and to cut short our
discussion on that, the Committee might as well accept the amendment of
the Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: Provided it is understood that all these limitations and the taxation
power of local governments imposed under existing decrees are not thereby
perpetuated.
MR. NOLLEDO: The undue limitations set forth specifically under P.D. 231 are
not perpetuated.
MR. OPLE: There is a long enumeration of limitations there.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, the Committee agrees.
MR. PADILLA: As a matter of fact, when I proposed this, I was basing it on the
previous constitutional provisions. I had no reference to P.D. 231 because I
am one of those who do not believe in recognizing, much less legalizing or
validating and much less constitutionalizing the unilateral presidential
decrees
of the past regime. I have made my position very clear on that point.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the amendment of Commissioner Padilla
consists of deleting the word guidelines on line 23, page 2 of Proposed
Resolution
No. 470, and in lieu thereof, substitute the words REASONABLE LIMITATIONS.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I have no objection to the word guidelines.
We can retain the word guidelines. It should read: . . . guidelines and
REASONABLE LIMITATIONS.
FR. BERNAS: By saying REASONABLE LIMITATIONS, it would seem to me

that we are not adding anything because the expectation would be that
limitations will
be reasonable. So, I do not see this amendment as strengthening the taxing
autonomy of local governments especially since the presumption always is
that
Congress acts with reason. It would seem to me that by accepting such
phrase, in effect, we remove the taxing autonomy.
MS. AQUINO: I am unable to appreciate the position of the proponent and the
Committee in accepting the amendment. It is axiomatic in law and
jurisprudence;
in fact, it is fundamental in all democratic governments that taxation is
subject to limitations: First, taxation is always subject to the requirement of a
public purpose; second, the requirement of jurisdiction; and third, the
requirement of uniformity. These are already safety valves which are inherent
limitations to the power of taxation. The inclusion of the amendment, as
proposed by the proponent, would only muddle the issues in the context of
the
position of Commissioner Bernas.
MR. NOLLEDO: It seems that because of the objection of Commissioner
Bernas, the issue now is which shall we use? Shall it be guidelines or
REASONABLE
LIMITATIONS?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is the original proponent and,
therefore, it is up to Commissioner Padilla whether or not to accept the
proposed
amendment of Commissioner Ople.
MR. PADILLA: I would like to say that Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution
provides:
Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of
revenue and to levy taxes subject to limitations as may be provided by law.
I was not the author of the adjective REASONABLE but I would accept that
word. That does not mean limitations on the power of Congress. It is more a
limitation on the power of the local units to tax.
So, there was a significant relevance when the former Constitutions provided
for limitations. I hear now that some say it is nonsense to include
LIMITATIONS because it is understood that these are reasonable limitations;
but, Madam President, when the word limitations which existed in the
former
Constitutions is deleted and it is substituted with another word guidelines,
the implication may be that there will be no more limitations on the power
of the local units to tax which may be prescribed by Congress. That is the
sad significant implication because when an existing word that is meaningful
is
eliminated, then it might give the wrong impression that Congress may only
provide for guidelines but never for limitations on the local power to tax.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the limitations are already in the
constitutional requirements just like uniformity of taxation and so forth. And
aside from
that, there is also the limitation of political dynamics. The legislative
authorities of local governments which will pass these laws will be subject to
the pressures of their locality. That, by itself, will also act as a limitation.
MR. PADILLA: May I just say one word. The limitations in the legislative
department are limitations on the power of Congress. Why are we not going
to apply
the same limitations to a lower political unit?
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla is very
clear on line 23, page 2 of the proposed Section 11 of the committee report
which is
to change the word guidelines to REASONABLE LIMITATIONS.
MR. PADILLA: It is not exactly to change.
My amendment should read: . . . subject to such guidelines AND
LIMITATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Vice-President insist on the phrase REASONABLE
LIMITATIONS?
MR. PADILLA: The word REASONABLE may or may not be included. I am

more insistent that my amendment should read: . . . such guidelines AND
LIMITATIONS as
Congress may provide.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee withdraws its acceptance of the amendment
because the word REASONABLE is not included.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed Padilla amendment,
hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor, 12 against and no abstention; the
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Suarez be
recognized to introduce an amendment.
My proposal is very simple. I would like to submit a motion to delete the last
sentence in Section 8, appearing on lines 24 to 26, which reads: A local
government unit shall likewise have the power to levy and collect charges or
contributions unique, distinct and exclusive to it. The reason is the fact
that in the previous sentence of Section 8, each local government unit is
already vested with the power to create its own sources of revenues. So,
imagine
under this section as approved with all the amendments there will be a
situation created wherein the citizens of a local political unit would be heavily
burdened with taxes. If we are going to interpret this Section 8 to its logical
conclusion, it would appear that even a barangay unit would have the power
to levy taxes. Then if we are going to carry it further, the municipal
government can also levy taxes. In addition, we have the provincial
government, and
on top of the provincial government, there will be the regional unit which
would be levying and imposing taxes on the poor citizens of a political unit.
Of
course, on top of it all, we have the national government.
So, Madam President, this particular sentence would not only be a

surplusage but would be a heavier burden imposed upon simple citizens
living in a
political unit. For these reasons, I submit most respectfully that this particular
sentence be deleted.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment
because this provision is in keeping with the principle that we have to
respect the
customs and traditions of the people of the indigenous communities.
This is a clarificatory question to the Committee: What does the Committee
have in mind in allowing this power to a local government unit to collect
charges or contributions? These are not taxes, I am sure.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I am ordered by our distinguished Chairman
to make the explanation.
We are aware that the Filipino nation is composed of a pluralistic society and
as such, each sectoral composition has a particular unit with customs and
traditions peculiar to it.
Let us take the case of the Bangsa Moro, which started organizing its
government through voluntary contributions. The Bangsa Moro has
developed this
particular idea which was later on confirmed by Islam when it came to this
country and contributed voluntarily towards the development of this form of
government. The Islamic community also helps run this government up to
this moment, whether inside or outside government authority. This is
particularly
the intention of this particular sentence included in this section.
These good traditional customs of the different indigenous groups in the
country should be given a constitutional recognition so that we can further
develop those customs for the interest not only of the locality where they
belong but also for the socio-political development of the country as a whole.
That is the motive.
MR. COLAYCO: I am afraid the Commissioner has not answered my questions.

MR. NOLLEDO: What are the Commissioners questions?
MR. COLAYCO: What are these charges? What are these contributions? For
what purposes? Is it to build a church, is it to build a road, is it to contribute
to a fiesta? That is all I want to know.
MR. ALONTO: Particularly, that will be used in general to contribute to the
purpose of developing and strengthening the society itself.
MR. COLAYCO: But we have the taxing power for that, for public use.
MR. ALONTO: No, the taxing power that we have in general is for public use.
MR. COLAYCO: So these charges are for private use. Is that what the
Commissioner mean?
MR. ALONTO: The purpose of the particular political unit who developed this
traditional custom of voluntarily giving contributions or levying those people
constituting that society is to help support whatever project it has for
sociopolitical development.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner means that there are cooperative efforts
among members of indigenous communities. So, without any constitutional
authority or
legal authority since anyone of them can question the levy, they may not be
able to raise some sinking fund for the common benefits as dictated by their
customs and traditions.
We do not need to cite specific examples because even in areas that are
located in Mindanao and Palawan, these people demand contributions from
the members
of their tribes. And some members of the tribes who have studied in Manila
change their minds because of their new environment. They object to the
imposition of levies. But actually these levies have been recognized since
time immemorial. And the purpose is laudable: for their common benefit in
the
spirit of cooperativism.
MR. COLAYCO: That is precisely my point. The Committee gives the power to
levy. That means it is mandatory.
MR. ALONTO: As I said, this is only constitutionalizing the particular customs
and traditions of the different tribes.
MR. COLAYCO: Will the Commissioner mention a particular purpose for the
alleged voluntary contributions which have been given by the local
community? Let
us say, for instance, it is customary at least in our province that when a
person dies, instead of sending flowers the people give abuloy in cash. Is it
something like that?
MR. ALONTO: Something of that nature.
MR. COLAYCO: But we cannot make it compulsory.
MR. ALONTO: There are different indigenous tribes in this country that have
already developed this practice to the extent not only of a customary law but
as an obligatory imposition among the members of the community.
MR. NOLLEDO: This provision was copied from the UP draft.
THE PRESIDENT: One at a time, please.
MR. COLAYCO: It is all right.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to inform Commissioner
Colayco that this was copied verbatim from the UP draft after studies of
various customs
and traditions in different parts of the country were made. This is also in
response to the request of the indigenous communities.
MR. COLAYCO: I have the Commissioners answer. However, I am not
satisfied.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: May I propound some more questions on this matter. Let us
suppose that in a Muslim community there is a custom particular to the
Muslims but
there are Christian residents in that community. Let us say that the
community is 80 percent Muslim, 20 percent Christian. Will the tax based on
Muslim
customs be imposed also on the Christian residents of that community?
MR. ALONTO: I can assure the Commissioner that not only because it is not
within the spirit of the Constitution to impose a different custom on a
different
indigenous tribe but also because as far as the Muslim community is
concerned, we have this fundamental belief in Islam: You cannot impose
your way of
life on others other than on yourself. And so, in a Muslim community the
Muslims will never impose this on their Christian brothers who are living with
them in the same community.
MR. RODRIGO: But this sentence provides that the levy will be made by the
local government. And those who live in the locality under the local
government
might not be all indigenous people. As a matter of fact, in most communities
the population is mixed.
MR. ALONTO: I agree with the Commissioner, but the wordings of this
sentence could be improved to clearly define that the indigenous customs of
a group of
people cannot be forced upon others.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this first sentence of the section refers to communities
and local governments in general.
MR. ALONTO: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: After this, there are some sections regarding autonomous
regions. Why not confine this provision to autonomous regions?
MR. ALONTO: I will have no objection to that proposal of transferring that
particular provision to the autonomous regions if the consensus of the
Members
of the Constitutional Commission is that those other tribes in this country like
the Tagalogs would not like to constitutionalize their good customary laws
and traditions.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I am constrained to object to the motion to
delete the sentence in that resectioned Section 11. I appreciate the position
of
the Committee that the intention here is to grant the local governments with
the reasonable latitude of fiscal autonomy. Besides, it has been mentioned
that it is already being practiced in some local governments in view of
specific practices and traditions. So this provision would just give legal
imprimatur to an already accepted practice. I would suggest, however, that
this section be transposed to the Article on Autonomous Regions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote? Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I just would like to know whether we have
to put this in the Constitution. If it is already a custom that is flourishing
without any objection, do we have to constitutionalize its continuance? Can
we not allow them to flourish? In fact, it may later on be putting a
straitjacket on them or be making it unhealthy for other groups.
So, for that reason, I would not also want this to be in the Constitution.
MS. AQUINO: If the reluctance is in view of possible abuse, it is my
submission that there are sufficient safeguards in the Constitution itself. In
the
Article on the Bill of Rights, any possibility of arbitrary classification can be
effectively circumscribed by the provisions on the equal protection of
the laws. In the Article on the Legislative, we have a provision which states
that all taxation shall be uniform.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, the objection is not only from the point of
view of abuse but on the more basic question: Do we need to put such a
thing
in the Constitution?
MR. BENNAGEN: I am supporting the motion to transpose it in the Article on
Autonomous Regions. The idea really is to codify, as it were, existing
customary
laws, so that these customary laws as they are integrated into the national
law will strengthen the whole body of national laws. It is true that customary
laws have a power of their own without the necessary coercion that is
associated with bureaucracy. The idea really is to help strengthen the
existing body
of national laws by integrating what we call ethnic laws.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but there is a provision in the Article on Autonomous

Regions that the government shall strengthen and protect the traditions and
the
cultures. It is here.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, I think the idea is to specify this within the context of
local governments.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but Section 4 states:
Within its territorial jurisdiction, an autonomous region shall have the
legislative authority over the following: . . . Preservation and development of
customs and traditions, and culture indigenous to the autonomous region.
So, if that is the purpose, this is well served already by this provision
abundantly.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I think the motion is to have this sentence
deleted from this section, and the Committee is amenable to transferring this
to
an appropriate section under the Article on Autonomous Regions. So, in
effect, the Committee is amenable to have this deleted from this present
section.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have the official stand of the Committee yet.
MR. NOLLEDO: We adopt the stand of Commissioner Alonto, Madam
President.
MR. BENNAGEN: Maybe the idea of transposing this is not literal in the sense
that we transpose this as a discrete statement. We are more interested in
putting in the concept to strengthen the general provisions in regard to
respecting existing indigenous traditions in the area, and I feel that that can
be
better discussed when we go into the Article on Autonomous Region.
So my idea is that this will not be bodily transposed to the Article on
Autonomous Regions, but the concept will be integrated to the appropriate
sections
under Autonomous Regions.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, although I would be amenable to transposing
this section, I would oppose removing it, especially after listening to the
explanations of Commissioner Alonto. This is a kind of tax which is not
uniformly applicable, and that being so, it is necessary to make a special
authorization for it so that it does not run afoul with the equal protection
clause. So, in effect, it would be an exception to the equal protection
clause, and because it is an exception, it would seem necessary to specify it.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from Commissioner Suarez?
MR. SUAREZ: I think we have discussed the matter thoroughly, Madam
President, except with respect to the matter of possible transposition of this
particular provision to the Article on Autonomous Regions, but even if we
reach that point, this humble Representation would still submit a motion for
the
deletion of this particular provision.
THE PRESIDENT: So I think we can proceed to vote on it.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, before we vote may I just ask one
question? Are charges or contributions really equivalent to the power to levy
and collect
charges or contributions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, they have the nature of taxes.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, I would like to know from the Committee if
it is agreeable to transpose this last sentence to another section on the
Article
on Autonomous Regions or to stick to the present configuration. I ask so
because the first paragraph is no problem. Why risk a division simply on this
particular last sentence when we can consider that later on under the Article
on Autonomous Regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: I adopted the opinion of Commissioner Alonto. My only fear is
that if we will transfer it to the portion on Autonomous Regions, there may be
other tribes involved who are not included in the two autonomous regions
that we are recognizing and, therefore, we limit the applicability of the
provision.
MR. BENGZON: That is precisely the point.

In order to expedite the matter, we will urge a voting on the matter.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, all that we are called upon is to decide whether or not
we should delete the last sentence of Section 11. Commissioner Suarez has
stated the principle that is involved in this particular sentence.
As many as are against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Few
The results show 27 votes in favor, 10 against, and no abstention; the
recognized.
The first amendment would be on Section 10, line 24. After the word
provide, add the following words: CONSISTENT WITH THE BASIC POLICY OF
LOCAL AUTONOMY.
This has become necessary because of the Padilla amendment adding the
words AND LIMITATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment. Is there any
comment on this?
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 20 of Section 9, I propose for its division . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: That is now Section 12.
MR. DAVIDE: We will make the first sentence to be reworded as the second
sentence of Section 11. It would read as follows: SUCH TAXES, FEES AND
CHARGES
SHALL ACCRUE EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, before we vote I think Commissioner Rodrigo
was ahead.
MR. RODRIGO: I am not an expert on taxation, so I just want to know. Even a
municipality levies local taxes. Does the province have a share?
MR. SUAREZ: May I state that I have the same question, so I would like to join
Commissioner Rodrigo in that inquiry.
MR. RODRIGO: I ask so because if a municipality levies taxes, it is impossible
for the province to share in those taxes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am not aware of any rule that says so but I know that even
the province has also the power to levy taxes.
MR. RODRIGO: That is correct. But is it then the purpose of this amendment
that taxes imposed by a municipality should be exclusively for that
municipality
and the province may not share at all in the taxes? Is that the purpose of this
amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the question should be directed to the proponent.
MR. DAVIDE: Even under the Committees wording, it would clearly appear
that if a municipality levies a particular tax, the province is not entitled to a
share for the reason that the province itself, as a separate local
governmental unit, may collect and levy taxes for itself.
MR. NOLLEDO: Besides, the national government also shares national taxes
with the province.
MR. RODRIGO: But if we approve that amendment, the national government
may not share in the taxes levied by the province?
MR. DAVIDE: The national government may impose its own national taxes.
The concept here is that the national government must share these national
taxes
with the other local governmental units. That is the second paragraph of the
original Section 9, now Section 12, beginning from lines 29 to 30.
MR. RODRIGO: Do I get it then that if the national government imposes taxes,
local government units share in those taxes?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, the local government shares in the national taxes.
MR. RODRIGO: But if the local government imposes local taxes, the national
government may not share?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct because that is precisely to emphasize the local
autonomy of the unit.
MR. NOLLEDO: That has been the practice.
MR. RODRIGO: Then let us go back to my original question. If a municipality
imposes municipal taxes, the province may not share?
MR. RODRIGO: Is that the purpose?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because the province itself may impose taxes affecting
properties or persons within this particular unit.
MR. RODRIGO: So if the provincial government imposes taxes, the
municipalities may not share? Is that it?
MR. DAVIDE: They may not share; but it is a matter of strategy on the part of
a province to improve the collection so that a certain percentage be given to
the municipality. It is now a matter of political strategy.
MR. RODRIGO: I will come back to my question; I am not an expert on taxes.

How is it at present?
MR. NOLLEDO: The same as contemplated by the answers of Commissioner
Davide under P.D. No. 231.
MR. RODRIGO: Kanya-kanya.
MR. NOLLEDO: Kanya-kanya.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide explain what is wrong with
Section 12 as worded by the Committee in the committee report which
reads: . . . shall
belong exclusively to local governments?
MR. DAVIDE: In the committee report, I only caused the deletion of the words
be retained by and shall belong. In lieu of that, the word ACCRUE is
placed. So, . . . it shall ACCRUE exclusively to the local government units.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will Commissioner Davide agree with the recommendation of
the Committee that instead of putting UNIT we put there local
governments as
originally contemplated in our report? I fear that there might be a possibility
or a need for the local government units within the province to share with
the province portions of taxes imposed by the municipalities, as revealed by
the inquiries of Commissioner Rodrigo. So, instead of using UNIT, we just
put there local governments.
MR. DAVIDE: I concede to the wisdom of the proposition.
MR. NOLLEDO: In which case, the Committee gladly accepts the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: So it will read: SUCH TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES SHALL
ACCRUE EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the second sentence?
MR. DAVIDE: The second sentence would be a new section that would be
Section 13. As modified it will read as follows: LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
SHALL HAVE A
JUST SHARE, AS DETERMINED BY LAW, in the national taxes WHICH SHALL BE

automatically PERIODICALLY released to them.
MR. NOLLEDO: That will be Section 12, subsection (1) in the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: No, we will just delete that because the second would be
another section so Section 12 would only be this: LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNITS SHALL HAVE A
JUST SHARE, AS DETERMINED BY LAW, in the national taxes WHICH SHALL BE
automatically PERIODICALLY released to them.
MR. NOLLEDO: But the word PERIODICALLY may mean possibly withholding
the automatic release to them by adopting certain periods of automatic
release. If
we use the word automatically without PERIODICALLY, the latter may be
already contemplated by automatically. So, the Committee objects to the
word
PERIODICALLY.
MR. DAVIDE: If we do not say PERIODICALLY, it might be very, very difficult to
comply with it because these are taxes collected and actually released by
the national government every quarter. It is not that upon collection a
portion should immediately be released. It is quarterly. Otherwise, the
national
government will have to remit everyday and that would be very expensive.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is not hindered by the word automatically. But if we
put automatically and PERIODICALLY at the same time, that means
certain
periods have to be observed as will be set forth by the Budget Officer
thereby negating the meaning of automatically.
MR. DAVIDE: On the other hand, if we do not state PERIODICALLY, it may be
done every semester; it may be done at the end of the year. It is still
automatic
release.
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as the Committee is concerned, we vigorously object to
the word PERIODICALLY.
MR. DAVIDE: Only the word PERIODICALLY?
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Commissioner is amenable to deleting that, we will
MR. DAVIDE: I will agree to the deletion of the word PERIODICALLY.

The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please read Section 12?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to commend Commissioner Davide for his
receptiveness. That will abbreviate the proceedings of this Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide please clarify what has been
amended for those who were not here yesterday? They are confused as to
how we have
worded and how we have changed the numbering of the sections.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us start with Section 12.
MR. DAVIDE: The original Section 9, which is now Section 12, will read as
follows: LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS SHALL HAVE A JUST SHARE, AS
DETERMINED BY LAW,
in the national taxes WHICH SHALL BE automatically released to them.
THE PRESIDENT: This has been accepted by the Committee.
approved.
be recognized for an anterior amendment?
I would like to propose an amendment to the present Section 11, line 24,
after the words Congress may provide.
MR. NOLLEDO: We are informing Commissioner Guingona that that was
already amended by Commissioner Davide by adding the words consistent
with the basic
policy of local autonomy.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, but just the same, this amendment is not affected by
Commissioner Davides amendment. My amendment would read as follows:
NO GUIDELINES
MAY BE ENACTED BY CONGRESS WHICH IN ANY MANNER WOULD DIMINISH

THE AUTONOMY ALREADY ENJOYED BY HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES AND CITIES
INDEPENDENT OF THE
PROVINCE BY VIRTUE OF PREVIOUS CONGRESSIONAL GUIDELINES, UNLESS
APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE INHABITANTS THEREOF.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any comment on this particular proposed
amendment of Commissioner Guingona?
MR. GUINGONA: May I be allowed to explain?
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I am for a strong national or central
government, but I see no incompatibility between a strong government, on
the one hand,
and strong local government units as agents of the national government, on
the other. I would like to congratulate the Committee for its perception; but
unless these local government units are given the corresponding or adequate
power in order to insure local autonomy, all our expressions of sympathy
would
be of no avail. I believe, Madam President, that there are two very important
powers that a local unit may enjoy in order to have a genuine local
autonomy.
One is a meaningful participation in the power to govern themselves. The
second is provided for in this particular section the power to create
sources of
revenues and impose the corresponding taxes, levies, fees, et cetera.
In our discussions yesterday, it was clear that we have three categories of
cities. We have the component cities, which are in the lowest grade or class
C; the cities which are independent of the province, which we can
categorize as class B; and the highly urbanized cities classified as class A.
I
would take it that as these cities graduate from one level to another under
the guidelines to be provided for by Congress, they would have greater
power to
create sources of revenue and the greater power to tax. Once these powers
are already granted by the guidelines and are actually imposed, these should
be
considered vested powers that cannot be removed from the highly urbanized
cities by another guideline that would be subsequently formulated by

Congress.
For example, if Quezon City, because of its category under the guidelines in
1988, is allowed to tax the practice of medicine or law in that city or to tax
airconditioners or whatever, Congress cannot pass another guideline in the
future restricting it from imposing that kind of tax without the approval of the
inhabitants of that city, urbanized city or city which is independent of the
province because they are the ones directly affected. If we take this power
away from them, this could be a subject of political football, where the
powers already granted may be taken away. In order to strengthen local
autonomy,
the highly urbanized city which is already exercising powers duly granted to
it by the guidelines should not be divested of these powers. I would also like
to mention, Madam President, that I had originally intended to include the
component cities but I have made my amendment conservative. But I would
like to
make it of record that perhaps the legislature could also consider the
component cities with this matter in mind because when we talk of local
autonomy, it
is not only a matter of talking of the relationship of the national government
vis-a-vis a local government unit. I would also envision local autonomy to
mean the relationship of the smallest unit, the municipality, for example in
relation to the bigger unit today the bigger unit is the province. There
could be in the future bigger government units metropolitan governments,
regional governments as indicated by Commissioner Ople yesterday. And this
relationship between the municipal government and the regional
government should also be taken into consideration.
As a matter of fact, a study was made by the UP College of Public
Administration Local Government Center before the 1971 Constitutional
Convention was
convened. The UP Local Government Center made a research and found out
that in many countries the trend is towards merging local units into bigger
units.
At that time, the UP Local Government Center of the UP College of Public
Administration said that there were 80,000 local units in the United States
and
there was a move to reduce this number to only 16,000.
May I know if the Committee would accept the amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee nevertheless regrets that it cannot accept the
amendment. The matters contemplated in the amendment can be well taken
care of in
legislation.
MR. GUINGONA: I submit, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will submit this to a vote.
MR. GUINGONA: No, Madam President, I will not insist.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Commissioner Guingona.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, before we proceed to Section 13, may I
move that we vote on the whole Section 8, now Section 11, as remolded and
reformulated? May I ask the Chairman of the Committee to read the whole of
Section 11.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Section 11 should now read as follows:
EACH LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE ITS
OWN SOURCES OF REVENUES
AND TO LEVY TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES SUBJECT TO SUCH GUIDELINES
AND LIMITATIONS AS CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE, CONSISTENT WITH THE
BASIC POLICY OF LOCAL AUTONOMY.
SUCH LOCAL TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES SHALL ACCRUE EXCLUSIVELY TO
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may we now vote on Section 11?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 11, as read by the
Chairman, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
hand.)
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Nolledo to read
the whole of Section 9, now Section 12, as amended.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 9, now Section 12, reads as follows: LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS SHALL HAVE A JUST SHARE, AS DETERMINED BY LAW, in
the national taxes

which shall be automatically released to them.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 12, as amended, please
hand.)
MR. SARMIENTO: For his amendment to Section 10, now Section 13, may I
ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
In association with Commissioner Davide, I propose the amendment which
reads as follows: Local governments shall be entitled to share in the
proceeds of
the exploitation and development of the national wealth within their
respective areas IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW, AND WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO SUCH SHARING,
TAKING THE FORM OF DIRECT BENEFITS TO THE POPULATION. In view of the
significance of this new section, may I ask the Committees leave to give a
brief
explanation, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
In the hinterland regions of the Philippines, most municipalities receive an
annual income of only about P200,000 so that after paying the salaries of
local officials and employees, nothing is left to fund any local development
project. This is a prescription for a self-perpetuating stagnation and
backwardness, and numbing community frustrations, as well as a chronic
disillusionment with the central government. The thrust towards local
autonomy in
this entire Article on Local Governments may suffer the fate of earlier heroic
efforts of decentralization which, without innovative features for local
income generation, remained a pious hope and a source of discontent. To
prevent this, this amendment which Commissioner Davide and I jointly

propose will
open up a whole new source of local financial self-reliance by establishing a
constitutional principle of local governments, and their populations, sharing
in the proceeds of national wealth in their areas of jurisdiction. The sharing
with the national government can be in the form of shares from revenues,
fees and charges levied on the exploitation or development and utilization of
natural resources such as mines, hydroelectric and geothermal facilities,
timber, including rattan, fisheries, and processing industries based on
indigenous raw materials.
But the sharing, Madam President, can also take the form of direct benefits
to the population in terms of price advantages to the people where, say,
cheaper electric power is sourced from a local hydroelectric or geothermal
facility. For example, in the provinces reached by the power from the Maria
Cristina hydroelectric facility in Mindanao, the direct benefits to the
population cited in this section can take the form of lower prices of electricity.
The same benefit can be extended to the people of Albay, for example,
where volcanic steam in Tiwi provides 55 megawatts of cheap power to the
Luzon Grid.
The existing policy of slapping uniform fuel adjustment taxes to equalize
rates throughout the country in the name of price standardization will have
to
yield to a more rational pricing policy that recognizes the entitlement of local
communities to the enjoyment of their own comparative advantage based on
resources that God has given them. And so, Madam President, I ask that the
committee consider this proposed amendment.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: Will the Gentleman, the champion of autonomy, yield to some
clarifications?
MR. OPLE. Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: Commissioner Ople has stated in his explanation that the
population or inhabitants of the area should also benefit from the
exploitation and
development of the natural wealth and resources.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. ALONTO: Will that also include the hiring and the employing of the local
inhabitants who are qualified for the work and process of exploitation and
development of this national wealth?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. In the broader contemplation of the sharing
in the proceeds of natural resources and direct benefits to the population, a
priority for the employment of local people is among the direct benefits to
the population contemplated in this amendment.
MR. ALONTO: In that case, in behalf of the population of the island of
Mindanao which is the source of the Maria Cristina electric power, I share
with the
Commissioners amendment and strongly support the proposal.
I just would like to put some caution into priority for local employment. It is
also a fact that given a hydroelectric project, we need minimum technical
skills that may not be locally available. However, although this section
contemplates priority for local hiring it will not prejudice the viability of a
project based on local natural resources if certain skills have to be imported,
let us say, from Manila or Cebu in the case of a project in Mindanao.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I support this proposal and it certainly is
meritorious but I just wanted to make a manifestation that the new
government has
adopted in the case of electric power, within its framework for economic
reforms, what they call grid pricing rather than a national pricing formula for
electricity. This means that those with some natural resources, like Mindanao
where the cost of power is lower, can set the price of power corresponding to
the cost of power generation. In other words, there would be differences in
the pricing of power depending on the grid and recognizing the natural
resources behind such generation of power. So, this is meritorious. I just
wanted to say that this is already the policy of government.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to ask Commissioner Ople if he
is amenable to the rewording of his amendment. After areas on line 2 of
page 3,
we add the words: IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW INCLUDING SHARING
WITH THE PEOPLE BY WAY OF DIRECT BENEFITS TO THEM.
MR. OPLE: Would the Gentleman agree to substitute INHABITANTS for

PEOPLE?
MR. NOLLEDO: Instead of PEOPLE we use INHABITANTS?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, the amended section will read as follows: Local
governments shall be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation
and
development of the national wealth within their respective areas IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW INCLUDING SHARING WITH THE INHABITANTS BY
WAY OF DIRECT
BENEFITS TO THEM.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted, Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: Just a slight amendment: WHICH MAY BE ALSO IN THE FORM OF
DIRECT BENEFITS TO THE INHABITANTS. This is simpler.
Is the word INHABITANTS proper to local government units or should it be
POPULATION? May I call on the indomitable Chairman of the Committee on
Local
Governments to submit a final phrasing.
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as the Committee is concerned, it is adopting the
original suggestion: IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW INCLUDING
SHARING WITH THE
INHABITANTS BY WAY OF DIRECT BENEFITS TO THEM. I think that is clear
enough.
MR. OPLE: I yield to the more gracious style of the Committee, Madam
President.
May we just clear up one point, Madam President? I am with the Gentleman
in his suggestion that the inhabitants should be getting direct benefits from
the
royalties that may be derived but it is not clear to me who shall direct the
manner by which these benefits should be extended to the inhabitants.
Would it
be Congress or would it be the local government?
MR. OPLE: It may be both, Madam President. I think Congress may have to
pass an enabling legislation that will fix certain standards and proportions of
sharing, but this Section can operate in a self-executory manner without
benefit of legislation. For example, Commissioner Monsod pointed out that
under
the regional grid system, it is already being done by the incumbent
government, but I would assume that the local government will initiate a
process
whereby, for example, the National Power Corporation can consider a
petition of the local people for a price rebate on the basis of this new Section
13.
MR. SUAREZ: To concretize the mechanism, let us say a particular political
unit would be entitled to P1-million worth of royalties in a year. In order to
determine how this P1 million will be extended by way of direct benefits to
the people at the first instance, the local government will have to initiate
the process, but to be concretized in a legislation to be passed by Congress.
MR. OPLE: It is very correct, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the honorable Chairman read Section 13 once more so
that we can vote on this?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Section 13 now reads as follows: Local
governments shall be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation
and
development of the national wealth within their respective areas IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW INCLUDING SHARING WITH THE INHABITANTS BY
WAY OF DIRECT
BENEFITS TO THEM.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, before we call for a vote, I manifested my
intention to the Floor Leader to introduce one more amendment to this
section and
I was about to be called after Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: So, it will be a proposed amendment to the amendment of
Commissioner Ople.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, are we ready to vote?

VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We are voting on Section 13, as amended by Commissioners
Ople and Davide.
As many as are in favor of this particular proposed amendment of
Commissioners Ople and Davide to Section 13, please raise their hand.
(Several Members
raised their hand.)
hand.)
is approved.
be recognized?
I would like to insert the word EQUITABLY between the words to and
share on line 31 of Section 13. I feel that since this wealth belongs to the
local
government unit, then they should be entitled to an equitable share.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular amendment of
Commissioner Guingona which has been accepted by the Committee?
(Silence) The Chair
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bennagen
be recognized for a minor amendment?

On Section 13, page 3, I propose to change the word exploitation to
UTILIZATION in order to temper the unsavory connotation of the word
exploitation,
which, incidentally, has already been deleted in the other provisions for
consistency.
MR. MONSOD: I agree with Commissioner Bennagen. As a matter of fact, in
the interest of harmonizing the words with the wording of the Article on
National
Economy and Patrimony, we are already avoiding the word exploitation and
instead we are using the words UTILIZATION and development. So, is it all
right if we harmonize it that way, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. OPLE: I also support the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the word to be used?
MR. BENNAGEN: UTILIZATION and development and delete the word
exploitation.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that the Chairman,
Commissioner Nolledo, read the whole of Section 13 before we vote on it.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Section 13, as amended, now reads as
follows: Local governments shall be entitled to EQUITABLY share in the
proceeds of the
UTILIZATION and development of the national wealth within their respective
areas IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW, INCLUDING THEIR SHARING WITH
THE
INHABITANTS BY WAY OF DIRECT BENEFITS TO THEM.

MR. MONSOD: Can we delete the words TO THEM in the last sentence of
the Section?
MR. OPLE: I support the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized. Is it still on Section 13?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. This is just to transpose the Guingona
amendment. Instead of the phrase to EQUITABLY share in, I propose TO AN
EQUITABLE SHARE so that it will harmonize with the just share in the national
taxes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: I support the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask the Chairman of the Committee to read the whole
of Section 13, as amended, so we can vote on it?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Section 13, as amended very recently, now
reads as follows: Local governments shall be entitled TO AN EQUITABLE
SHARE in the
proceeds of the UTILIZATION and development of the national wealth within
their respective areas IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW, INCLUDING THEIR
SHARING
WITH THE INHABITANTS BY WAY OF DIRECT BENEFITS.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this Section 13, as read by the
Chairman, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
hand.)
approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, for Section 11, now Section 14, may I ask
that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I am not proposing an amendment. I just
want to manifest that the word barrio in Section 14 should now be changed
to
BARANGAY because of the amendment to Section 1 of barrios to
BARANGAY.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee agree?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, we have made the change, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the change of the word barrio to
BARANGAY? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rosario
Braid be recognized?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I will not make an amendment, if the
Committee can answer my question.
Would the criteria on Section 14, line 5, page 3 include criteria suggested by
environmental planners such as encouragement of mergers, subdivisions
and
alterations of boundaries according to geographical, cultural considerations?
These have been recommended by the Society for Environmental Planners
and
various other institutes. But the provision here seems to state that any
alteration would have to conform to criteria laid in the Local Government
Code
which uses criteria of size and income. Should we continue to perpetuate the
current geographical divisions which are criticized as the gerrymandering of
local politicians or should we encourage the creation of new mergers
according to these factors I mentioned?
MR. NOLLEDO: Do I understand that the Commissioner is against
gerrymandering?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, I am.
MR. NOLLEDO: The factors mentioned by the Commissioner are deemed
contemplated by the Committee.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I raise the question, Madam President, because it says
here that the criteria are those established by the Local Government Code. I
looked up the Code but it does not state those criteria I mentioned but only
the criteria of size and income.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. I think the criteria in the Local Government Code are
insufficient, Madam President. I subscribe to the Commissioners statement
that the
factors mentioned should likewise be considered.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Should not these criteria be included here?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I think they should be considered.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Therefore, could we amend this section to include those
factors as additional criteria?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think we are only urging Congress to consider those criteria
mentioned without necessarily amending this provision. The Commissioner
told me
that she is merely inquiring and if I would say affirmatively that those factors
should be considered, necessarily there is no need for amending this
section.
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, this will be on Section 1, for the autonomous
regions.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just be clarified? Was this Section 14 now transferred
to be known as Section 4?
MR. DAVIDE: That was the Maambong proposal, I guess.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, my proposed amendment to that was already
accepted by the Committee and it is only the deletion of the words unit or
on line
8.
THE PRESIDENT: So, do we still have a Section 14?
MR. DAVIDE: That was supposed to be transferred to an earlier portion,
Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, while this is denominated as Section 14,
this should be transferred after Section 3 and should now be Section 4.
Transposition was made upon motion of Commissioner Foz.
MR. MAAMBONG: While we have already approved the deletion of unit or, I
would like to inform the Committee that under the formulation in the present
Local Government Code, the words used are actually political unit or units.
However, I do not know the implication of the use of these words. Maybe
there
will be no substantial difference, but I just want to inform the Committee
about this.
MR. NOLLEDO: Can we not adhere to the original unit or units? Will there
be no objection on the part of the two Gentlemen from the floor?
MR. DAVIDE: I would object. I precisely asked for the deletion of the words
unit or because in the plebiscite to be conducted, it must involve all the
units affected. If it is the creation of a barangay, the municipality itself must
participate in the plebiscite because it is affected. It would mean a
loss of a territory.
THE PRESIDENT. What is now to be considered?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we will now proceed to the autonomous
regions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Suarez be
I have an amendment, but if I obtain the necessary clarification from the

distinguished Chairman, I will not press for the amendment. It is in
connection
with the words boundary substantially altered appearing under what is now
known as Section 14. Madam President, do I take it that the plebiscite and all
other requirements in the matter of boundary alteration would be needed
only in case it is substantial in character?
MR. SUAREZ: So if it is less substantial in character, there is no need for a
plebiscite or for the other requirements.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is the implication.
MR. SUAREZ: And what would be considered substantial alteration, for
purposes of clarification on the record, Madam President?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee leaves it to Congress to determine by
formulating the necessary provision in the Local Government Code.
Would the Gentleman have any objection if we delete the word
substantially in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding
regarding its possible
interpretation even by Congress itself? In other words, the moment there is a
boundary alteration, then it is mandated that all the requirements must be
complied with.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, there is a possibility that the boundary
involved may be minimal and the other municipality will not object, and the
people
perhaps of that municipality will not object. So I think the word
substantially should remain in the provision.
We will not press for the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: We are now on Section 14, line 10, page 3 of the draft. Before
the first word There, I suggest that the following phrase be placed, namely,
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL IN A PLEBISCITE BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS
OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AFFECTED and put a comma (,) after.
That would be my
first amendment because I will have another amendment on line 12.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has denominated this as Section 14. Do I
understand now that we are not following the numbering of the sections in
the
Committee Report?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the numbering is not consecutive with
respect to autonomous regions. So we may refer to that as Section 1 of
Autonomous
Regions or can we refer to that as Section 14?
MR. BENGZON: Considering that this is one article, perhaps we should have a
continuous numbering.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, at the start of the discussion on the report of
the Committee on Local Governments, the Chairman stated that this report
on
local government consists of two parts: The first part refers generally to all
local government units; and the second part refers to autonomous regions. In
the second part, we start with Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on.
MR. BENGZON: It does not matter with me, Madam President. That is another
issue which the body can consider at the proper time.
THE PRESIDENT: So let us adhere to the draft Section 1 of the Autonomous
Regions.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President. May I repeat my amendment to
Section 1, Autonomous Regions. Before the word There on line 10, put the
following
phrase: SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL IN A PLEBISCITE BY A MAJORITY OF THE
VOTERS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AFFECTED, and then continue
with There shall
be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera
consisting of provinces . . .
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized to clear up one point?
MR. SUAREZ: May I call the attention of Commissioner Bengzon to lines 26,
27 and 28 which read:
The creation of the autonomous region shall be approved in a plebiscite by a
majority of the voters of the constituent units.
Will this not operate to solve the problem which the Commissioner raised
under Section 1?
MR. BENGZON: It depends on how we interpret this, Madam President. In the
way I envision it, there are two sets of plebiscite. We have to know first which
are those provinces in one region that would wish to be a part of the
autonomous region. Subsequently, Congress will enact the organic act which
will be
the constitution of this autonomous region, and this organic act will
thereafter be presented to the people for approval in a plebiscite.
MR. SUAREZ: If I understand the Gentleman correctly, what he is suggesting
is the first step.
MR. BENGZON: What I am suggesting is the first step.
MR. SUAREZ: And the second step is the one contemplated under lines 26,
27 and 28 and this will be undertaken or resolved and determined by the
voters of
the constituent units in other words, the constituent political units which
have already agreed.
MR. BENGZON: These are the units which have already opted to be part of
the autonomous region. They will now be ratifying that organic act which, in
effect, will be their constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: This is pursuant to Commissioner Bengzons suggested
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: May I be allowed to explain, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: It may be true that historically there are a lot of our brothers
in these areas who have wanted to become autonomous. Precisely, for that
very
reason, we should not deprive them of the right to express categorically their
desire to be a part of the autonomous region. This is a rare and historic
moment in their lives and in our history as a whole. Therefore, we should
respect that right and we should give them every opportunity to express
individually this desire of theirs to become a part of the autonomous region.
Secondly, we have seen quite a number of people here who have come and
who have expressed their desire to be part of the autonomous regions. We
have the
Ifugaos; the Kalingas and those from Apayao, but we do not know what is the
feeling of the other brothers we have in the other parts of the provinces that
may be affected by this move. There may be other indigenous communities
in other provinces, perhaps, in La Union or in Pangasinan, and we do not
know what
their feelings are about this. If they do agree to become part of the
autonomous region, well and good, and, therefore, we should give them that
rare
opportunity in this history of our country to express affirmatively their desire.
In the same manner, those who may not wish to become part of this
autonomous region should also be given this opportunity to express in black
and white their desire not to join the autonomous region. All provinces and
municipalities which will form part of the autonomous region would be very
clearly seen to have expressed categorically their desire to become part of
the
autonomous region.
Our brothers in Mindanao should have no problem insofar as this is
concerned, particularly those in Region IX and in Region XI because they
have been given
the local autonomy they now have. But then let us give every generation
that is still living this great opportunity in our history to express affirmatively
their right, their desire to become part of the autonomous region. In this
manner we cannot be said to have rammed autonomy down the throats of
our
brothers in these areas just because a majority of them have said that they
want to be autonomous. Those who do wish to be part of the autonomous
region
should be given the opportunity to express that desire. After we shall have
gotten their votes and after we shall have determined that these provinces
wish
to become part of the autonomous region, that is the time when Congress
will now enact the organic act that would spell out the details on the creation
of
this autonomous region. This will be presented thereafter again in a
plebiscite, this time to approve the organic act that has been prepared by
Congress.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, will the Gentleman yield to some questions?
MR. BENGZON: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: The Committee feels that Section 1 is the general provision
which merely points out and mandates the Congress to organize two
autonomous
regions Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. ALONTO: The process by which Congress shall start to reorganize is
found in the other sections under the heading Autonomous Regions as stated
and
already pointed out by Commissioner Suarez. In Section 2, the Congress shall
organize this in such a manner that all those units that wish to join the
autonomous region shall be consulted because Congress would not be
enacting an organic act without consulting the multisectoral body that is
involved in
these two regions. And so, what the Commissioner is trying to prevent is
already stated in this section that has been presented to the body. So, a few
would suggest to put that phrase there that will give a different meaning to
this section which is of general application to the rest of the country.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee deeply regrets that it
cannot accept the amendment, because it is emasculating the entire set of
provisions on
Autonomous Regions. It will be unwieldy to create the autonomous regions
because we are contemplating on two kinds of plebiscite. I think the
provisions on
lines 26 and 28 are clear enough with respect to Section 2, because we have
to consult the multisectoral bodies for each autonomous region. Public
hearings
will be conducted, and then when the organic act is passed, it is only after
this organic act has been passed that the people will be able to determine
whether the provisions thereof will really redound to their benefit. If we go to
a plebiscite for the first time, telling them whether they wish to create
autonomous regions, the people may be misinformed and, therefore, there
will be no basic issues to be defined.
This Chairman regrets that that kind of amendment presented is not in
accordance with what has been agreed upon in a caucus.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I reply?
MR. BENGZON: There is no need to be very emotional about this whole thing.
I do not think that the Chairman really got my point here.
In this body, we have approved that autonomous regions will be created for
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. That is definite. There is no quarrel
about
that. It is definite. The only purpose in my amendment is to find out which
among those provinces would wish to become part of the autonomous
region. We
have several provinces that will be involved. So, let us find out from those
provinces if all of them are willing to be part of the autonomous region. We
cannot ram it down their throat. I am sure that there are several provinces
that are willing, that would wish to become part of this autonomous region.
But
it should be stated in black and white. They should be given that rare
opportunity to express their affirmative belief.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear Commissioner Bacani.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, this is in response to what Commissioner
Nolledo said. In Section 2, what is being mandated is that Congress shall
enact an
organic act in consultation with multisectoral bodies for each autonomous
region, defining the basic structure of government for the region. I think what
is being asked by Commissioner Bengzon and I would like to second him in
that is that the people would also be able to exercise self-determination as
to whether they would themselves in a particular town or province be willing
to be included in the autonomous region. I think that was basically answered
by Commissioner Alonto at one time when we were asking him about the
constitution of this autonomous region. He said that in cases where the
places are
inhabited not only by Muslims, then people can determine whether or not
they want to join the autonomous region. But how are we going to find out
whether
the people want to join the autonomous region, if we do not do it by a
plebiscite?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I wonder if Commissioner Bengzon and the
Committee would accept a slight suggestion which would necessitate only
one
plebiscite for determining both the approval of the autonomous region, as

well as the inclusion or noninclusion of constituent units. That can be very
easily accomplished by adding to the last sentence of the last paragraph of
Section 2 the proviso that PROVIDED, THAT ONLY CONSTITUENT UNITS
VOTING
FAVORABLY IN SAID PLEBISCITE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE AUTONOMOUS
REGION. The second paragraph of Section 2 will, therefore, read as follows.
The creation
of the autonomous region shall be EFFECTIVE WHEN approved by majority of
the voters of the constituent units IN A PLEBISCITE CALLED FOR THE
PURPOSE:
PROVIDED, THAT ONLY CONSTITUENT UNITS VOTING FAVORABLY IN THE SAID
PLEBISCITE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE AUTONOMOUS REGION. I think that
this will
accomplish, with only one plebiscite, both the approval of the autonomous
regions, as well as the determination of which provinces shall be included
and
which shall not be included in said autonomous region.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the organic act?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, the organic acts are the ones that will be
submitted to the voters for a plebiscite; organic acts will contain the
territorial
delimitations.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Azcuna a
question?
MR. BENGZON: In that one plebiscite, are we already going to present to the
people the organic act that will be made by Congress?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. The organic act will already be
presented, together with the proposed territorial delimitation or the
constituent units.
And once the organic acts are accepted, only those constituent units which
voted in favor of the organic acts will be included in the autonomous region.
That will be the effect of the plebiscite.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, what about a particular area, province,
municipality or barrio which may wish to join in the autonomous region, but
when the
organic act is presented it would not agree with the terms or the
delimitations and they may vote against that?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, the formulation of the organic act will be
through a method of consultation with local leaders. So, presumably, it will
distill the consensus of the regions and the inhabitants therein, so that it will
probably be acceptable to most, if not to all, of the inhabitants of that
region. It will really be left to whether or not they want to be included in the
autonomous region rather than on a term that they do not like. Anyway, the
basic powers are already defined in this Article, so it will just be really details
of the region, inclusion of certain territories that will be
legislated. My proposal would simplify it by having only one plebiscite, and
then determining in that plebiscite whether a certain province or a certain
city voted in favor, in which case it will be included.
MR. BENGZON: May I have then the suggested amendment of the
Commissioner.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I suggest that lines 26 up to 28 be reworded
as follows: The creation of the autonomous region shall be EFFECTIVE WHEN
approved by majority of the voters of the constituent units IN A PLEBISCITE
CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE: PROVIDED, THAT ONLY CONSTITUENT UNITS
VOTING FAVORABLY
IN THE SAID PLEBISCITE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE AUTONOMOUS
REGION.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, if the Committee is willing to accept that, I
am willing to withdraw my amendment on Section 1, line 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Or the Commissioner can join in this particular amendment.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President, I will join Commissioner Azcuna in that
amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I ask for a suspension, Madam President, in order to
consult the other members of the Committee for what involves a
transcendental
question.
It was 12:08 p.m.

MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I request my fellow Commissioner and partner,
Commissioner Azcuna, to take the microphone. Since I have agreed to accept
the proposal of
Commissioner Azcuna by amending lines 26, 27 and 28, which amendment
has been accepted by the Committee, may I request the Commissioner to
read that
amendment?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, Section 2, as amended, will read as follows:
The creation of the autonomous region shall be EFFECTIVE WHEN approved
by
majority of the voters of the constituent units IN A PLEBISCITE CALLED FOR
THE PURPOSE: PROVIDED, THAT ONLY CONSTITUENT UNITS VOTING
FAVORABLY IN THE SAID
PLEBISCITE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE AUTONOMOUS REGION.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, will Commissioner Azcuna agree to an
MR. DE LOS REYES: Instead of constituent units, I suggest PROVINCE OR
CITY, so that it will not include municipality and barangay.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable?
MR. AZCUNA: It is accepted, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we accept the amendment of
Commissioner de los Reyes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment on lines
26, 27 and 28?

MR. MONSOD: May I just ask a clarificatory question? Why are we excluding
municipalities as valid constituent units for purposes of a plebiscite?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, it is not that we are excluding the
municipal unit as a unit or that we are prejudiced against municipal units;
but just
imagine the anomaly if, for example, the whole province of Zamboanga is
agreeable to be a member of the autonomous region, and then one small
municipality
is against it, and that one municipality will not be a member of the
autonomous region. That would be anomalous.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: It could also be that one barangay will be against being a
member of the autonomous region. So, we should have a certain parameter
by
limiting it to province or city. That is my reason.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I can see the point in the case of the
barangay. But let us take the case of Lanao del Norte which, I believe, has 24
municipalities. As I understand it, and I can be corrected, there are 12 or 13
Muslim municipalities and 11 or 12 Christian municipalities. Would that not
complicate the issue if we say that the 11 municipalities, if they are really
Christian municipalities, can be outvoted in the province, even if
individually there is a very strong majority not to be included in the
autonomous region?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I would think that they should abide by the decision of
the majority in the province. Otherwise, if we will allow each municipality to
have their say on the matter, then that will defeat the very purpose for which
autonomous regions are being created.
BISHOP BACANI: May I inquire from Commissioner Azcuna? Suppose there
are six or seven municipalities that are contiguous and adjacent to each
other and
which all vote against joining the autonomous region, will that not be a
sizeable unit or group to warrant being exempted? I would just like to know.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, as the provision is presently worded, this

would depend on the relative size of population or voter-wise as against the
whole
province. If it is the majority of the province, then it can turn the vote for that
province. But the reckoning of inclusion or exclusion from the region
would be on a province-to-province and city-to-city basis as worded. It will be
reckoned on the basis of the voting in the province and in the cities
included in the proposed autonomous region, not by municipalities.
BISHOP BACANI: Not even by groups of municipalities?
MR. AZCUNA: Not even by groups of municipalities.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I add that before this plebiscite takes
place, Congress shall have already enacted the organic act. Before it enacts
this
organic act, it will go through the process of public hearings and
consultations. And I suppose those municipalities that would not wish to
become part of
the autonomous region can certainly express their desire. And if they are
unable to succeed in Congress, they can always try when it comes to the
plebiscite. Otherwise, we might get into a situation where one small
municipality in the middle of a province may vote against it and, therefore, it
will
become an island unto itself.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I would like to pose one question: if a city
within the prospective autonomous region will not participate in the
plebiscite
or would boycott the plebiscite, would such a boycott be considered as a
rejection of its membership in the autonomous region?
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: So it may be actual participation with positive rejection or
nonparticipation at all which would also amount to a rejection.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, because this is such an important and historic moment in
the history of the country that there should be an affirmative expression of
the
will of the people.
MR. DAVIDE: If it is nonparticipation, it is not really affirmative in the sense

that a vote against is cast.
MR. BENGZON: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: So, if they do not participate, would such nonparticipation by
the greater number of inhabitants in a given city be construed as amounting
to a
rejection?
MR. BENGZON: It should be construed as a negative vote.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it is a negative vote.
Thank you.
MR. ALONTO: The act of boycotting does not necessarily mean a refusal to
join the autonomous region. It can mean a defiance against the constituted
authority of this country. So, I beg to disagree with the interpretation given
by Commissioner Bengzon to the inquiry of Commissioner Davide. I think it
should not be taken into consideration in the discussion of this historic event.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair agrees with Commissioner Alonto.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I was going to say that we have been
enlightened by the explanation of Commissioner Alonto and, therefore, we
agree with the
interpretation of the Committee that those who wish to vote affirmatively
must vote yes; those who do not wish to join must cast their vote and vote
no; and that in case some will boycott, that boycott will not be considered
as a negative vote.
MR. BENNAGEN: I just want to add a few notes here as a result of our public
hearings and consultations with various groups which are involved in this
issue. This idea is not mine but it came from any of these individuals
involved in consultation, both in the Cordilleras and in Muslim Mindanao.
There is
this apprehension among the non-Muslims and the non-Cordillera people
about this inversion of the historical process, which means that some kind of
a
reversed discrimination can emerge from the autonomy status. One of them
believes that that is a projection of the Christian-Muslim relationship in the
case of the South, and of the lowlander-highlander relationship in the North.
They agreed in their deliberations that they will abide by the principle of
full equality and nondiscriminatory practices for that is the principle that
they are trying to work by. The details of this have to be worked out in the
organic act and in all other acts that would emanate from this autonomy
status.
In any case, the feeling is that they have learned enough from these
centuries of struggle not to repeat or to invert that kind of historical process.
If
that is a consoling thought, then I wish to share that with the body.
Are we now ready to vote on this particular proposed amendment of
Commissioners Azcuna and Bengzon?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, before we vote, may I just ask a question?
MR. RODRIGO: I had to be out on important matters, so if my question has
already been answered, please tell me.
Once the autonomous region is formed and because of migration, may a
certain province decide later on, say ten years from now, to secede from the
autonomous region?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, that is the subject of an amendment which
Commissioner Davide will propose a little later. But in the meantime, we
would like
to get through with our amendment which has already been approved by the
Committee. The fact of withdrawal, I think, is the subject of another
amendment.
VOTING
Commissioners Azcuna and Bengzon, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised
their hand.)
hand.)
approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, there are still proponents for this section
but since it is already past twelve, may I move that we suspend the session
until two-thirty this afternoon.
It was 12:33 p.m.
MR. SARMIENTO: We are still on Section 14. May I ask that honorable
Commissioner de Castro be recognized.
I have a minor observation on Section 1, page 3, lines 10 and 11, which
reads: There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao . . .
Upon
first reading, it will appear that the whole Mindanao is composed of Muslims
because Muslim is used as an adjective for Mindanao. If the Committee will
agree, I would rather change it FOR THE MUSLIMS OF MINDANAO instead of
Muslim Mindanao. So, the provision will read: There shall be created
autonomous
regions FOR THE MUSLIMS OF MINDANAO and the Cordillera . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Alonto here?

MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Alonto is not here but the Committee rejects
the amendment, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: If I may explain, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro may proceed.
MR. DE CASTRO: As I said, when one reads the provision, it will appear that
the whole Mindanao is occupied by Muslims when it is not true. Surigao is not
occupied by Muslims; there is no Muslim in Surigao. There is no Muslim in
Misamis Oriental, in Bukidnon, in Misamis Occidental. So, it may not appear
right
when we say Muslim Mindanao so I am changing it FOR THE MUSLIMS OF
MINDANAO.
MR. OPLE: May I explain briefly why the Committee is inclined not to accept
the amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee has not accepted the amendment.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I am trying to explain why the Committee has not accepted
the amendment. With the permission of the Committee, I think Muslim
Mindanao in
this paragraph refers to the old Moro homeland, more or less, defined in the
Tripoli Agreement. However, this is now subject to a plebiscite, and Congress
will have the power to designate the areas for the plebiscite in consultation
with the leaders of Muslim Mindanao. To say MUSLIMS OF MINDANAO rather
than
Muslim Mindanao will be really to delimit the area of autonomy in such a
way as to put the whole autonomy in jeopardy as contemplated in this
section.
But I am glad that the member of the Committee with the greatest
competence on this subject has already arrived, Commissioner Ahmad
Domocao Alonto, and I
would like to yield the floor to him if he is ready, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, the fears of the Honorable Ople have no
basis because we are only clarifying the areas of Muslim Mindanao. If we put
Muslim Mindanao, it will appear that the whole Mindanao is a Muslim area.
I will submit, Madam President.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I think there is a different conception and descriptive idea of
the word Muslim Mindanao. The whole Mindanao is not inhabited
predominantly
by the Muslims. But when we say Muslim Mindanao, this refers to the part
of Mindanao predominantly occupied by the Muslims. That is why to be more
colorful or descriptive, when we say Muslim Mindanao, that means that
part of Mindanao predominantly occupied by the Muslims.
Not only is this in the Philippines but also in other countries such as Sri
Lanka. We call a part of Ceylon as Ceylonese Ceylon and that is occupied by
the
Ceylonese, different from the Tamils. So, when we say Muslim Mindanao, it
means an area predominantly occupied by the Muslims.
MR. DE CASTRO: Will the Honorable Abubakar agree to MUSLIM-DOMINATED
AREAS OF MINDANAO?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee does not accept the amendment because,
Madam President, the basis of granting autonomy to a region is not only the
historical,
cultural, linguistic, ethnic and communal characteristics but also the
economic or other aspects.
MR. DE CASTRO: We agree on that. What we do not seem to understand is
that when we say Muslim Mindanao, the word Muslim is used as an
adjective for the
whole Mindanao. We simply state that the whole of Mindanao is Muslim area,
which is not. That is why my amendment is FOR THE MUSLIMS OF
MINDANAO instead
of Muslim Mindanao.
BISHOP BACANI: May I suggest perhaps a compromise formula. It will be
something like this: There shall be created autonomous regions in THE
PREDOMINANTLY
Muslim AREAS OF Mindanao and a comma (,). So, we refer to the area and
to the predominance of the population. It is not Muslim-dominated. That is
not the
idea, but numerically the majority is Muslim.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will agree to that, just to content ourselves and just to be
sure that Mindanao is not all Muslim area.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, the amendment being proposed does not
really alter what is really the meaning of Muslim Mindanao because when
we read the
section in relation to the other sections, it will definitely show that only those
areas whose population or inhabitants that have a common historical,
cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics will
vote for the autonomous region.
So, whatever area is not predominantly occupied by inhabitants of the same
common historical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other
characteristics will not vote.
MR. DE CASTRO: There really is.
MR. ALONTO: Without even altering, Madam President, the wordings of the
first sentence of this section, that would definitely guarantee whatever the
Gentleman has in mind. It might include people or inhabitants that are not
within the concept of the definition stated in Section 1.
MR. DE CASTRO: If the Gentleman will please listen, it does not change the
meaning of granting autonomous regions to the Muslims in Mindanao. I
would only
like to correct the impression of the phrase Muslim Mindanao because it
will appear that the whole Mindanao is a Muslim area. My amendment
FOR THE
MUSLIMS OF Mindanao does not affect the cultural, linguistic and ethnic
characteristics. It is only for a better understanding of what we intend to
make
as autonomous regions in Mindanao.
I submit, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: If that is the fear of Commissioner de Castro, why do we not
eliminate Muslim and use only Mindanao?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner de Castro say?
MR. DE CASTRO: It will change the whole thing, Madam President. It will
grant the Misamis Oriental group autonomy. The third presidential candidate,
Mr.
Canoy, is waiting for that because he is working for a federal state in
Mindanao. It will change the whole thing if we take away PREDOMINANTLY

MUSLIM AREAS
OF Mindanao or FOR THE MUSLIMS OF Mindanao.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the recommendation of Commissioner Bacani
which was accepted by Commissioner de Castro?
BISHOP BACANI: The recommendation is IN THE PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM
AREAS OF Mindanao.
MR. DE CASTRO: I agree with that.
BISHOP BACANI: In that case, there will also be a parallel. We will be
speaking of areas and not of persons. We speak of areas in the Cordillera and
areas
IN THE PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM AREAS OF Mindanao. I think it clarifies the
sense intended by the phrase Muslim Mindanao.
MR. OPLE: May I ask the Committee a question in connection with the subject
at hand?
Madam President, under the limited autonomy now existing in Mindanao
mainly inspired by the Tripoli Agreement, there are provinces like
Zamboanga del Sur
and Zamboanga del Norte that are represented in the autonomous
government; and yet in the case of Zamboanga del Sur, if put to the test of
predominantly
Muslim areas, may I assure you that Zamboanga del Sur will be eliminated. If
this is true of Zamboanga del Sur, this is even truer of Zamboanga del Norte.
So, if we do not retain Muslim Mindanao which has been given this definite
meaning in the explanations of the Committee, we will be limiting the areas
of
the autonomy even more than what now exists contrary to the clear desire of
the Constitutional Commission to provide a more meaningful, a more
complete and
a more substantial economy for the same areas that are now covered by the
autonomous regional government in Mindanao. For that reason, Madam
President, as
one of the original authors of the resolution adopted by the Committee for
creating the two autonomous regions, I believe I cannot support the
proposed
amendment of Commissioner Crispino de Castro.
Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask a question of the Honorable Ople? I heard him say
that there is now an autonomous region in Mindanao because of the Tripoli
Agreement. Is that correct?
MR. DE CASTRO: May I know the legislative body in the autonomous region of
Mindanao based on the Tripoli Agreement?
MR. OPLE: There is a legislative assembly, and a so-called Lupong
Tagapagpaganap.
MR. DE CASTRO: Is that legislative assembly recognized by our present
government?
MR. OPLE: Apparently it is recognized, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: I do not believe so; otherwise, Muslim Mindanao must be
operating independently now of the Philippines.
MR. ABUBAKAR: May I intervene for clarification?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I want to assert the fact that the autonomous region in
Mindanao is recognized by the present government, Madam President.
(Applause)
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes, there is an autonomous region now in Mindanao. It is
composed of the provinces of Sulu, Zamboanga, Basilan and Zamboanga del
Norte. I am
not sure if Lanao and Tawi-Tawi are included.
MR. NOLLEDO: Tawi-Tawi is included in Region IX.
MR. ABUBAKAR: This is the Southern Mindanao Autonomous Region; it has a
legislative body with a Speaker and is located in Zamboanga. This legislative
body
drafts laws and resolutions for the Southern Mindanao region. I even know
the Speaker personally. He is Mr. Sali Ututalum, Jr., and he resides in
Zamboanga
and presides over this legislative body. If there is any clarification or any
question as to the existence of this body, then many of us do not know the
present governmental setup in Mindanao.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I have stated from the start of our
consideration of this Article on Local Governments that the autonomous
region exists now
in this country. There is a de facto existence of an autonomous government
in what we call now Regions IX and XII. Region IX is composed of the
provinces
of Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Basilan, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur and
Zamboanga del Norte, including all the component cities in the provinces.
Region XII is
composed of the Provinces of Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao,
Sultan Kudarat and North Cotabato. This autonomous region has its central
governmental quarters in Zamboanga City for Region IX and in Cotabato City
for Region XII. In fact, it is stated by Commissioner Ople that it has an
executive commission and a legislative assembly.
MR. ALONTO: These two regions have been organized by virtue of P.D. No.
1618 of President Marcos, as amended by P.D. No. 1843.
MR. ALONTO: If the Gentleman will bear with me, I will explain to him. That is
why I said that there is a de facto autonomous government existing in
Mindanao.
THE PRESIDENT: May we please allow Commissioner Alonto to finish his
remarks before any interruption?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, this autonomous region is recognized by the
present regime for the very reason that the present regime is now in the
process
of a negotiation with the Moro National Liberation Front. In a way, what we
are doing is to give a constitutional basis for the President of this country
today to proceed with that negotiation with the Moro National Liberation
Front.
MR. UKA: Madam President, not only that. President Corazon C. Aquino has
appointed Mr. Albert Tugum as the Chairman of Region IX and Mr. Datu
Zakaria
Candau as Chairman of Region XII. They are doing their work well right now.
So, there are two recognized autonomous regions. They have also a
complete
regional assembly as the legislative body. So, it is only a matter of putting
this in the Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is before the body is the proposed amendment on
line 11 of Section 1.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, if there is now an autonomous region in
Mindanao and if, according to the Honorable Ople, this has the recognition of
the
central government, what then is the use of creating autonomous regions in
Muslim Mindanao and going through the process of a plebiscite and enacting
an
organic act?
My amendment is simply to clarify the term Muslim Mindanao. I really did
not expect that this will go this far that it is being placed in the
Constitution, that it is a fait accompli and that all we have to do here is say
amen to the whole thing and if we do not say amen, they will still
continue to be autonomous regions. I insist on my amendment, Madam
President.
MR. OPLE: May I provide more information to Commissioner de Castro
concerning this matter.
First of all, we have to correct his misimpression that the autonomous
regions, such as they now exist in Mindanao, do not enjoy the recognition of
the
central government. Secondly, may I point out that the autonomy existing
now in Regions IX and XII is a very imperfect kind of autonomy. We are not
satisfied with the legal sufficiency of these regions as autonomous regions
and that is the reason the initiative has been taken in order to guarantee by
the Constitution the right to autonomy of the people embraced in these
regions and not merely on the sufferance of any existing or future
administration.
It is a right, moreover, for which they have waged heroic struggles, not only
in this generation but in previous eras and, therefore, what we seek is
constitutional permanence for this right.
May I also point out, Madam President, that the Tripoli Agreement was
negotiated under the aegis of foreign powers. No matter how friendly and
sympathetic
they might be to our country, this is under the aegis of the 42-nation Islamic
Conference. Should our brothers look across the seas to a conclave of
foreign governments so that their rights may be recognized in this
Constitution? Do they have to depend upon foreign sympathy so that their
right can be
recognized in final, constitutional and durable form?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople, the consensus here is to grant
autonomy to the Muslim areas of Mindanao.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The only point is, shall we change the wording of line 11 of
Section 1? That is all. The words Muslim Mindanao are stated in the
committee
report. Commissioner de Castro seeks to amend the words. The Committee
does not accept, so let us put it to a vote.
MR. OPLE: I am willing to have it submitted to a vote, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, before we vote on this, the amendment
recommended by Commissioner de Castro will be a retrogression because he
will be
concentrating the autonomy only to the Muslim-dominated areas. The
presently constituted autonomous regions consist of Muslim-dominated and
Christian-dominated areas where, according to Commissioner Alonto, they
live in harmony and love. So, we will be retrogressing; we will be limiting the
autonomy to Muslim Mindanao if we will adopt the de Castro amendment,
Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, it is only a clarification of the words
Muslim Mindanao. I did not really expect it to be carried to this extent. It is
not a retrogression because we will have a plebiscite in that area. So, if all
the Christians there want to have autonomous regions, so what? It will still
be the same.
But to say Muslim Mindanao means that the whole Mindanao is Muslim
populated.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that has been stated already, Commissioner de Castro.
May we have the proposed amendment so we can submit it to a vote.
MR. DE CASTRO: As worded, and as amended by the Honorable Bacani, the
amendment reads: There shall be created autonomous regions in THE
PREDOMINANTLY
Muslim AREAS OF Mindanao.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think we use Muslim Mindanao here in the sense that we
also use Christian Philippines to refer to our country in relation to the Asian
context. When we use Christian Philippines, we do not deny the existence
of other religious groups. So, I think we should take the term in that context.
Also, we should recognize the fact that there are areas in Muslim Mindanao
where several groups of ethnic origins, of ethnic religious language and
characteristics harmoniously coexist. We should encourage that kind of social
harmony in the region.
VOTING
Commissioner de Castro, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
their hand.) (Applause)
We request our visitors to please refrain from any demonstration here in the
session hall.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Villacorta
be recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, this is an amendment by substitution to
lines 12 and 14 of Section 1. We have distributed copies of the proposed
amendment
which is cosponsored by the Honorable Ople, Bennagen, Uka, Alonto,
Abubakar, Villegas, Sarmiento, Davide, Aquino and Suarez.
As amended, this section will read as follows: There shall be created
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera consisting of
provinces,
cities and geographical areas SHARING DISTINCTIVE OR UNIQUE historical,
cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics
within
the framework of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
Philippines. So, the amendments are to delete with common and
substitute it
with SHARING DISTINCTIVE OR UNIQUE, and to delete and respecting.
If the Committee wants an explanation, I would like to offer the justification
for this amendment, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: The justification for using the phrase SHARING
DISTINCTIVE OR UNIQUE is to highlight the rationale for the granting of
autonomy to Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras, which have distinctive characteristics that
distinguish them from the dominant national community which is
predominantly
Christian and which make them deserving of the special attention and
treatment from the State.
Moreover, this amendment is to emphasize that regional autonomy is
reserved only to those regions which have distinctive and unique
characteristics, and
not to regions which have characteristics common to the dominant national
community.
This will reflect the sense of the Commissions not favoring the idea of
federalism which would make regional autonomy open to all regions.
MR. BENGZON: I have an amendment to the amendment, and I am
sponsoring this because I have lifted this from a draft presented to me by
Commissioner Alonto
and was, in turn, suggested by a gentleman who was with us in the 1971
Constitutional Convention, Mr. Michael Mastura. The amendment is: On line

12, we
eliminated the phrase after the word geographical all the way to the word
characteristics on line 13, and in lieu thereof, the following:
MUNICIPALITIES HAVING COMMON GEOGRAPHIC TIES, HISTORICAL AND
CULTURAL HERITAGE, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND OTHER
CHARACTERISTICS. Then continue on
to within the framework of and respecting the national sovereignty . . .
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Villacorta say?
MR. BENGZON: May I explain, Madam President?
MR. BENGZON: From the explanation given to me by the gentleman I just
mentioned, the words linguistic, ethnic, communal which are already
included in the
term historical and cultural heritage. That is all-encompassing and, of
course, we retain the words COMMON GEOGRAPHIC TIES and THE
ECONOMIC, and add
SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS. This would simplify the
whole sentence and put elegance into it.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I accept the amendment on condition
that instead of the word COMMON which would not really reflect the sense
behind the
granting of regional autonomy, the Honorable Bengzon use DISTINCTIVE.
MR. BENGZON: Commissioner Alonto says yes, so I accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman kindly read again.
MR. BENGZON: A little kibitzer here suggested COMMON AND DISTINCTIVE.
MR. VILLACORTA: Did Commissioner Bengzon use the word SHARING?
MR. BENGZON: No, I did not use the word SHARING.
MR. VILLACORTA: It will make it more emphatic and representative of the
unity that they have if we use the word SHARING, then COMMON AND
DISTINCTIVE
GEOGRAPHIC TIES.
MR. BENGZON: So, instead of using the word HAVING, maybe it would be
more descriptive to use the word SHARING.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, Madam President.

MR. BENGZON: So, the provision will read: MUNICIPALITIES SHARING
COMMON AND DISTINCTIVE GEOGRAPHIC TIES, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
HERITAGE, ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.
MR. VILLACORTA: That would be all right, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: It is beautiful.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee need time to consider or does it accept
the amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee would like to negotiate with Commissioner
Bengzon on the use of geographic areas because this will affect the
Cordilleras.
MR. BENNAGEN: Both the Cordilleras and Mindanao.
MR. BENGZON: The word TIES was lifted from the draft that was submitted
to me.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, this is a very basic point and I move that we
suspend the session.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may we suspend the session for two
minutes?
It was 3:30 p.m.
Commissioner Bengzon be recognized for his reformulated Section 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Section 1 of Part II.

Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I am happy to say that we were able to
come to an agreement including the intended amendment of Commissioner
Davide, so we
saved that particular portion. As it is now, the section will read as follows:
There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordillera consisting of provinces, cities and MUNICIPALITIES AND
GEOGRAPHIC areas SHARING common AND DISTINCTIVE historical AND
cultural HERITAGE,
economic AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND other RELEVANT characteristics
within the framework of and respecting the national sovereignty and
territorial integrity
of the Republic of the Philippines. The last is the Davide amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So, this becomes a joint amendment of Commissioners
Villacorta, Bengzon and others.
MR. BENGZON: Commissioners Villacorta, Davide and this Representation.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee gladly accepts the amendment, Madam
President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, just one minor point. Do we have to retain
respecting?
MR. BENGZON: That is the wording of the Committee.
MR. OPLE: Yes, may I ask the Committee to set aside that phrase.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee agrees that and respecting should be
deleted.
MR. VILLACORTA: Just for the record, the co-authors of my amendment are as
follows: the Honorable Ople, Sarmiento, Bennagen, Uka, Alonto, Abubakar,
Villegas, Aquino and Suarez.

Commissioner from Cebu, Hilario G. Davide, Jr., be recognized.
I will propose very minor perfecting amendments and one substantial
amendment. On line 11, I seek for the deletion of the word in before
Muslim and in
its stead, the word FOR; between and and the before Cordillera, insert
the word FOR and add S to Cordillera. So, the provision will read: FOR
Muslim Mindanao and FOR the CORDILLERAS consisting of provinces . . . and
so on.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 14, after the word of, I seek for the deletion of and
respecting.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is already deleted.
MR. DAVIDE: So in lieu of and respecting, insert the following: THIS
CONSTITUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE IMPERATIVE TO PRESERVE AND
ENHANCE. So, lines 14 and
15 will read as follows: within the framework of THIS CONSTITUTION AND
SUBJECT TO THE IMPERATIVE TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE national
sovereignty and
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the amendment is not acceptable to the Committee,
Madam President. If Commissioner Davide would agree, I recommend that it
should
read: within the framework of THIS CONSTITUTION and the national
sovereignty AS WELL AS territorial integrity of the Republic of the
Philippines. The
Committee win accept the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: I have no objection. So, the provision will read: within the
framework of THIS CONSTITUTION and the national sovereignty AS WELL AS
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, my amendment has already been taken up
and approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Azcuna.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, before we vote on the whole Section 1,
now Section 14, may I ask Chairman Nolledo to read Section 1, as amended.
MR. NOLLEDO: May we ask Commissioner Bennagen to read Section 1.
MR. BENNAGEN: I will read it on behalf of the Chairman. There shall be
created autonomous regions FOR Muslim Mindanao and FOR the
CORDILLERAS consisting
of provinces, cities, MUNICIPALITIES and GEOGRAPHIC areas SHARING
common AND DISTINCTIVE historical AND cultural HERITAGE, economic AND
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
AND other RELEVANT characteristics within the framework of THIS
CONSTITUTION and the national sovereignty AS WELL AS territorial integrity
of the Republic
of the Philippines.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular section, as
amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
hand.)
is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: For Section 2, now Section 15, may I ask that the honorable
Commissioner Foz be recognized.
MR. FOZ: In our amendment to the original Section 2 under the autonomous
regions, now Section 15, there will be a transposition and some additions. So,
I
will just read the section, particularly the first paragraph, as sought to be
amended. It shall read: THE CONGRESS SHALL IN CONSULTATION WITH
MULTISECTORAL
BODIES IN EACH AUTONOMOUS REGION ENACT AN ORGANIC LAW DEFINING
THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT. IT SHALL CONSIST
OF THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT HEADED BY AN ELECTIVE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND A REGIONAL
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. THE ORGANIC ACT SHALL PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL
COURTS WITH FAMILY AND
PROPERTY LAW JURISDICTION WITHIN THE REGION EXCEPT OVER ITS
CHRISTIAN INHABITANTS SUBJECT TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURES PROVIDED
BY NATIONAL LAW AND THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CONSTITUTION.
We would like to get the response of the Committee to the provision as
sought to be amended.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, there is a proposed amendment to this
section by Commissioner Ople which covers practically the entire section. So,
I am now
at a loss on whether to accept the amendment or not until the Ople
amendment is considered. May I also observe, Madam President, that the
words APPEAL
PROCEDURES would seem to be irrelevant. With due respect to
Commissioner Foz, we are talking only of jurisdiction here; besides the
procedural rules on
personal law and property law jurisdiction of the special courts may be
provided for in the Rules of Court or in other special rules. So, I would prefer
not to mention APPEAL PROCEDURES.
MR. BENNAGEN: Also in the suggested Foz amendment, reference is made to

the exception of Christian inhabitants from the family and property law
jurisdiction. There would be other groups; non-Christians and non-Muslims
would be part, and may be some compromise description of this mixed
population
should be adopted instead of specifying only Christian inhabitants.
MR. FOZ: I would be amenable to any suggestion in that regard. But I think
there has to be mention of appeal because the family and property laws that
may
be provided or enacted by the legislative assembly of the region have to be
consistent with national law and the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will Commissioner Foz be satisfied if the Committee states
that it is its intention that the Rules of Court, as promulgated by the Supreme
Court in accordance with the provisions on judicial power of the Constitution,
will govern? That is the sense of the Committee. That is why if Commissioner
Foz will delete the portions on procedural appeal, the Committee will be very
receptive to his amendments. And if he can harmonize his amendments with
those of Commissioner Ople, the Committee will likewise seriously consider
the amendment.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, we would like to hear the amendment of
Commissioner Ople. I understand that Commissioner Davide also has some
amendments that
have relevance to this section, Section 15.
MR. NOLLEDO: May we call upon Commissioner Ople, Madam President?
This is an amendment proposed by Commissioners Rama, Nolledo, Davide,
Bennagen, Alonto, Villacorta, Azcuna and this Representation. The
amendment reads:
The Congress shall enact an Organic Act FOR EACH AUTONOMOUS REGION
TO BE INITIALLY DRAFTED BY A REGIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO
BE NOMINATED BY
MULTI-SECTORAL BODIES AND APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
Then, on some stylistic changes in what follows for brevity and simplification,
all recommended by Commissioner Rama, it reads: THE ORGANIC ACT
SHALL
DEFINE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE REGION
CONSISTING OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
BOTH ELECTIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE CONSTITUENT POLITICAL UNITS. The organic act may likewise provide
for courts with personal law and property law jurisdiction consistent with the
provisions of this Constitution on Judicial Power.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, some amendments of Commissioner Foz
can be incorporated in the Ople amendment.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may we ask some questions of Commissioner
Ople with regard to his amendment?
MR. FOZ: Under the amendment of Commissioner Ople, there would first be a
regional Constitutional commission that would draft the organic act for the
region. Once this is drafted, the organic act shall be submitted to Congress
for its consideration.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Congress has the final say.
MR. FOZ: But the Congress will not be bound in any respect by such a draft
organic law.
MR. OPLE: The effect will be persuasive on Congress, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: Does the Gentleman not think that if the draft organic law prepared
by the regional constitutional commission contains certain radical ideas or
provisions, and if Congress does not approve of such radical ideas or
provisions, there would be some kind of a frustration or letdown on the part
of the
multisectoral bodies who would be represented in that commission, and that
this would have some adverse effect on whatever Congress will finally
approve as
an organic act?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I suppose we have to presume, just like in the case of other
bodies, the good faith, intelligence and regularity of the constitutional
commission that will be appointed, including the intelligence to know what is
attainable. Therefore, that is a risk that I do not wish to deny can be
present. It is very much offset by the prospects of the popular response to
this act of initiative that is granted to the inhabitants of the region through
their representatives who will be appointed.
MR. FOZ: Since there would be practically two stages in the enactment of
such an organic act or law, would it not be more convenient for Congress to
be
directly vested with the authority to proceed and draft, and finally enact such
an organic law after consultations with multisectoral bodies in the region?
After all, the Congress is not expected to draft it without consultations. That
is a very express provision, a requirement in Section 15, that Congress
shall proceed only in consultation with the multisectoral bodies in the region.
So, it would be a roundabout way to first authorize the setting up of a
regional constitutional commission whose work, after all, would have to fall
onto the lap of Congress which will have the final authority to pass such a
law.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. The idea is to put the stamp of authentic
participation of the autonomous region right upon the act of creation; and
while
the Congress has the power to pass an organic act, there is no reason why
the autonomous regions should not be given the privilege of participating in
their own creation from the beginning by drafting the organic act for the
consideration and approval by the Congress. May I submit that while
Congress is
in no way barred from introducing any changes that it will consider necessary
to reflect the national popular will, the process of regional leaders
themselves including multisectoral representatives drafting an organic act
for the consideration of Congress falls in place as a very symbolic act
dramatizing the principle behind autonomy.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I add to Commissioner Oples
statement? Under the Ople amendment, the consultation with multisectoral
representatives is
not prohibited. Even the constitutional commission created under the Ople
amendment can conduct the consultation before it actually drafts the organic
act
for the region.
MR. OPLE: There is nothing here to impede any manner and degree of
consultation with the people, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President. May we address a few
clarificatory questions to the honorable proponent?
If I understand the thrust of Section 2, as proposed, it contemplates two

legislative acts: one, the organic act; and two, the act preceding the organic
act. I am referring to the establishment and organization of what the
Gentleman calls a regional constitutional commission. Is our understanding
correct in
this regard, Madam President?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President, except that the act of drafting the organic
act at the regional level is mainly in aid of legislation by Congress.
MR. SUAREZ: But it is a preparatory act to the enactment of the organic act
or charter.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the Gentleman is not contemplating under this provision
that the regional constitutional commission would be created by this
Constitution?
MR. OPLE: The power is vested in the President of the Philippines to appoint.
MR. SUAREZ: On the appointment in the President, but not in the constitution
of the regional constitutional commission, or would it be left to Congress?
MR. OPLE: I would rather leave that to Congress. I also assume that in the
process of drafting the organic act at the regional level, the process of
interaction between Congress or the leaders of Congress and the regional
commission shall have already taken place.
Would the Gentleman take into account the proposal of Commissioner Foz,
because it is not clearly stated in this proposal?
MS. QUESADA: I would like to seek some clarification from Commissioner
Ople. In previous discussions, I often hear that what we put in the
Constitution are
supposed to be provisions that will be good for many years. I am just
bothered by this particular section because it is stated here that this will only
be
initially drafted by a regional constitutional commission to be nominated by
multisectoral bodies and appointed by the President, et cetera. But will this
particular section serve any purpose after this would have been enacted?
MR. OPLE: Yes, the principle is established that in the future beyond the
autonomy granted to two specific regions now, if there is an application for
such
regional autonomous status, the same principle will be observed.
MS. QUESADA: So, this is a principle or a guideline that needs to be retained
here even after Congress shall have enacted an organic act?
MR. OPLE: Yes, in the indefinite future when more regions with common and
distinctive ethnic, cultural, economic and other characteristics decide to seek
autonomous status, then the same principle will apply.
MS. QUESADA: So, we will not leave it to Congress to provide for these
details?
MR. OPLE: Actually, Congress will not be barred from providing for a law that
will spell out the details of this principle, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Will Commissioner Ople yield to two questions, Madam
President?
MR. OPLE: Gladly, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: First, on the authority of the draft to be submitted by the
regional constitutional commission, will it be much more than the authority
of,
let us say; the draft constitution of the UP that was given to us? Or will it be
at par with that draft constitution as regards its binding force?
MR. OPLE: We say that Congress has the final say but in the nature of what
Commissioner Bernas this morning called the political dynamics of the
situation,
I would assume that Congress would put the utmost weight on this draft
organic act that will be submitted to them by the regional constitutional

commission.
BISHOP BACANI: The second question that I would like to ask for my
enlightenment so I can vote is: In Section 7 of the provisions on the
autonomous
regions, it is stated:
The Congress shall, within one year from the election of its Members, define
the territorial jurisdiction of, and pass the Organic Acts, for the autonomous
regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
Pushing back the actual passage of the organic act, will it not, therefore,
mean that if we accept the Gentlemans amendment, there will be a greater
impatience generated in the regions because then the autonomous regions
will not have been constituted yet?
MR. OPLE: No, Madam President. I want to thank Commissioner Bacani for
calling the attention of the body to that. In the last section, there is a
timetable
set so that within one year of the election of the Members of the next
Congress, an organic act for the autonomous regions will be passed. I think
this is
well within the deadline, Madam President. If Congress know that within one
year from the time of their election they would have to pass an organic act, I
am sure that steps would be taken in the spirit of prudence and responsibility
to insure that this regional body will be functioning so that the output can
be delivered according to such a schedule as to help Congress comply with
the deadline of one year.
BISHOP BACANI: Just an additional question, Madam President.
Will the same purpose that is sought to be achieved by such a regional
constitutional commission not be achieved by something less formal? It can
be a
convention, but not necessarily a regional constitutional commission, which
will draft suggestions for the charter that will be approved by Congress. Does
the Gentleman not think that that would be sufficient?
MR. OPLE: I think that can also be allowed but as to being sufficient, I have
my misgivings about that. In fact, when representatives of the autonomous
regions are called to participate in the very act of their creation by drafting
an organic act, they are exalted to the level of a dignity that will never
be attained through informal consultations alone.
BISHOP BACANI: But, Madam President, my fear is that there may be some
decisions where the difference in the number of votes was very slight, like
the
decision on adopting a bicameral or unicameral form of legislature. I was told
that officially there was only a difference of two votes. When it becomes an
act of a regional constitutional commission, people may really expect that
something like that will also be approved by Congress. But later on, Congress
may decide otherwise. So, the level of expectation may be brought very high
when the proposals come from a regional constitutional commission, while a
less
formal convention of multisectoral bodies may actually be able to propose
effectively without, at the same time, unnecessarily raising the expectations
at
a level which cannot be met.
MR. OPLE: Just one brief reply to that, Madam President. I visualize the
situation by that time as being one where Mindanao and the Cordillera have
their
own representatives. Members of the House of Representatives and Members
of the Senate will then be in close touch all the time with the leadership and
membership of both Houses. Because of this close rapport, I think we can be
sure that the level of attainability of a draft organic act prepared at the
regional level will have been very much improved and the same
representatives and senators representing these regions will make sure that
there are very
few gaps in the perceptions of what can be attained as the final output in
terms of an organic act.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that the subject has been sufficiently
discussed.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee, Madam President, is asking for a suspension
of the session to consolidate the amendments.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Nolledo requests a suspension of session to
harmonize the Foz amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes, and will
Commissioner Foz please confer with the Committee for his amendment.
It was 4:18 p.m.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, Commissioner Foz and Commissioner
Ople have harmonized their amendments.
May I ask that Commissioner Nolledo read the reformulated section.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Bennagen to read
the amended section.
We have come to a happy agreement on the formulation of Section 2 and it
reads: The Congress shall enact an Organic Act FOR EACH AUTONOMOUS
REGION WITH
THE ASSISTANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF A REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE
COMMISSION. THE ORGANIC ACT SHALL DEFINE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF
GOVERNMENT FOR THE REGION
CONSISTING OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
BOTH OF WHICH SHALL BE ELECTIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
CONSTITUENT POLITICAL UNITS. THE
ORGANIC ACT MAY LIKEWISE PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL COURTS WITH
PERSONAL, FAMILY AND PROPERTY LAW JURISDICTION CONSISTENT WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONSTITUTION
AND NATIONAL LAW. THE CREATION OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS SHALL
BE APPROVED IN A PLEBISCITE BY MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS CAST.
THE PRESIDENT: What happened to the other paragraph amended by
Commissioners Azcuna and Bengzon?
MR. BENNAGEN: We approved that earlier.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, but there is a committee amendment

on . . .
THE PRESIDENT: This was approved already as is.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, I think we can read that later on when we approve the
whole section.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is part of Section 2, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: This is a continuation of the first paragraph.
MR. NOLLEDO: What has been read, Madam President, is the first paragraph
of Section 2. The second paragraph will be read by Commissioner Bennagen.
MR. BENNAGEN: THE CREATION OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGION SHALL BE
EFFECTIVE WHEN APPROVED BY MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST OF THE
CONSTITUENT UNITS IN A
PLEBISCITE CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE PROVIDED THAT ONLY PROVINCES
AND CITIES VOTING FAVORABLY IN SAID PLEBISCITE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN
THE AUTONOMOUS REGION.
THE PRESIDENT: That was approved already.
MR. PADILLA: With regard to the phrase SPECIAL COURTS WITH PERSONAL,
FAMILY AND PROPERTY LAW JURISDICTION, I would propose the deletion of
this sentence
for the following reasons: First, our approved Article on the Judiciary does not
provide for these special courts although the Supreme Court is authorized
to establish inferior courts. Second, within these autonomous regions, the
chances are that the judge is a Muslim in the Muslim region or a native
lawyer
judge, say, in the Cordilleras. In a litigation, the Muslim plaintiff, usually
represented by a Muslim lawyer, and the Muslim defendant, also represented
by a Muslim lawyer, can very well inform the Muslim judge or even the
Christian trial judge in control of the litigation of the proper law applicable.
The
regional trial court in that autonomous region or province sometimes there
are several regional trial courts in one province may decide the case by
applying the personal law of the Muslims or of the Cordilleras that is properly
applicable. My point is that while former President Marcos issued one

presidential decree creating this special Muslim Sharia Court, he also issued
another decree on Muslim personal laws. I understand that there have been
efforts by Muslim lawyers to get some instruction or education from foreign
lands; there was even an attempt to have Muslim lawyers take bar
examinations
given by the Supreme Court, but I understand no one passed the
examinations. What I am trying to say is that I recognize that the Muslim or
Islamic Sharia
law will be applicable to a litigation involving their personal law. But we do
not perhaps need to create special courts because this can be taken care of
by the regional trial courts. The only point is that the Muslims in Mindanao
want their personal law respected and enforced. This can be done within our
judicial system, without the need of creating and maintaining special courts.
Oftentimes, Muslim conflicts may be decided by settlement through peaceful
negotiation, maybe through the intervention of their datu. The very few
litigations may not reach the courts. But if they reach the courts, why should
we
recognize, legalize, validate and even constitutionalize special courts created
by two decrees of the past regime which may not be necessary?
I understand, Madam President, that the Tripoli Agreement under Section 14
(3) says that in the areas of autonomy, the Muslims shall have the right to
set
up their own courts which implement the Islamic Sharia law, and shall be
represented in all courts, including the Supreme Court, et cetera. We will
recognize the Islamic Sharia law as applicable to a litigation between
Muslims. But should we continue with these special courts when, after all,
even in
cases of litigation between Filipinos and foreigners and there being conflict of
laws, our own courts decide by applying the proper law; and in the absence
of positive statutory law, the customs are always a source of law that will
apply to a given litigation?
So, if it is acceptable especially to Commissioner Alonto, my proposed
amendment is that while we respect the Islamic law on litigations affecting
the
Muslims in Muslim Mindanao, is it absolutely necessary that we have special
courts for the application of such law?
As I said, I suppose the judge in these Muslim provinces will be a Muslim who
knows Muslim law. Assuming he is a Christian judge, the Muslim lawyers of
the
litigants can present evidence as to the proper law applicable. The regional
trial court or the provincial trial court may make a decision by applying and
respecting the Islamic Sharia law.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Padilla a few

questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama may proceed.
MR. RAMA: The apprehension of the Gentleman also covers the possible
complications if we have to set up courts in the country, particularly when
the
appeals are made, so that there would be two sets of rules which would
confuse the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Is that part of the
Gentlemans
apprehension?
MR. PADILLA: I suppose the procedural law, the Rules of Court, should apply.
But with regard to substantive law what they call personal law like the
laws
on marriage, divorce, there is no prosecution for bigamy because Muslim law
permits more than one wife or some customary law on succession I do not
know
whether there is recognition, for example, of primogeniture. These portions
of our Civil Code will give way to the Islamic Sharia law. But the court that
will decide this issue between Muslim litigants need not be a special court. I
think it can be taken care of by the regional trial courts. I would say that
most probably the regional trial judge in a province within the Muslim
autonomous region will be a Muslim Filipino.
MR. RAMA: Does the Gentleman know that there are already existing special
courts taking special examinations related to the Muslim law?
MR. PADILLA: That is my information, Madam President. President Marcos
issued these two presidential decrees; one creating the special courts and
another
issuing a Muslim code of law, which is quite extensive perhaps almost onehalf of our Civil Code and which very few could understand. But the law
applicable can always be presented to the regional trial judge for its proper
application.
MR. RAMA: With the indulgence of the Chair, Commissioner Uka would like to
provide information of the actual Muslim courts that are now existing and
how
they operate.
MR. UKA: Madam President, I wish to inform the body that as of this moment,
the special courts known as Sharia Courts are already established in the
Muslim provinces. There are two kinds of judges: the executive judges and
the municipal judges of the Sharia Courts. Their jurisdiction covers Muslim
personal laws on family and property. Those judges already appointed took
seminars conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court. And many
of them
are my former students. Before they are appointed judges, they have to take
seminars and some of them were sent to Cairo, Egypt to study the Islamic
law or
Sharia. These is Judge Corocoy Moson, who is now in Cotabato City as
Sharia executive judge. There is also one executive judge in Marawi, another
one in
Zamboanga City and the others are Sharia municipal judges in some
municipalities. These courts were created because of the peculiar laws or
provisions
under the Islamic jurisprudence or Sharia. That is why during the meeting of
the Committee on the Judiciary, I even asked what may happen if a case is
appealed from the special Sharia Courts to the Supreme Court or the Court
of Appeals, as the case may be. How will the Supreme Court decide or
resolve it
when there is no Muslim justice in the Supreme Court? Of course, the only
thing that could possibly be done is to appoint a Muslim justice in the
Supreme
Court because through all the years from the Spanish time up to the present,
there was not a single Muslim justice in the Supreme Court, not because
there
are no qualified Muslim lawyers but I really do not know why. Maybe a Muslim
may be appointed justice this year, maybe next year, maybe never. So, there
are still some important things to be done to make the Sharia Courts
functional. The Supreme Court in the meantime postponed the giving of the
so-called
Sharia mini-bar examinations conducted by it but many are now preparing
for the examinations. They call it mini-bar which means small, like
minimized,
mini-skirt, and things like that. So, there is really a reason for the creation of
the so-called Sharia Courts in the Muslim areas of the Philippines. In
fact, there is already issued by decree a personal code of the Muslims which
is being applied by these Sharia Courts. What should be done in case this
provision on Sharia Courts be deleted? What shall we do with those Sharia
Courts already established? And what about the mini-bar examinations to be
conducted by the Supreme Court? Shall we order the Supreme Court to stop
the examinations and shall we abolish these special courts? I was about to
stand
up earlier to propose an amendment to the amendment so that the provision
will read: The Organic Act shall likewise provide for SPECIAL courts with
personal law and property law jurisdiction within the autonomous region
consistent with the provisions of this Constitution on Judicial Power. I would
change the word may to SHALL to make it mandatory. But that would
depend upon the wish or decision of the body as expressed by the
Committee.
MR. UKA: What about the amendment of my good friend, Commissioner
Padilla?
MR. PADILLA: May we inquire from Commissioner Uka whether these
appointments were done during the Marcos regime or during the Aquino
administration?
MR. UKA: Let me refresh my memory. Some were appointed during the past
administration and some were appointed to fill some of the vacancies during
the
present administration.
MR. PADILLA: As to the question of what will happen to these judges, they
can always be the regional trial judges or the municipal trial judges.
MR. ALONTO: The suggestion of Commissioner Padilla is really quite
something to think about. However, the amendment of this section as
already read to the
Gentleman has provided for all that he has in mind. The last sentence reads:
The Organic Act may likewise provide for SPECIAL courts with FAMILY and
property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution
AND NATIONAL LAW.
So, the organization of special courts is actually an implementation of that
basic and essential reason why we are granting autonomy to these particular
regions which, as we have stated in Section 1, is the nonviolation of
historical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic and other
characteristics. In order to implement this and strengthen the basis or reason
why we should, as we have done, grant autonomy to these regions, those
particular cultural differences between the cultural minorities and the
cultural majority in this country should be implemented. One of the most
important
differences between the dominant cultural community and the cultural
minority in this country is the law that governs personal, family and property
relations between the different inhabitants within that cultural community.

So, how can we give reality to the acceptance of cultural differences between
the cultural inhabitants in this country if we do not provide for the
government instrument to implement those differences?
This is very basic in the creation of autonomous regions for if we do not
provide for that, it is only autonomy in mouth and not in reality.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to support the position of Commissioner Alonto. I
think the setting up of special courts is giving due recognition to a viable
legal system. This is long recognized by the dominant western-based legal
system. I think, in the long run, it will enrich our national law.
MR. FOZ: I would like to give some information. I think there is a serious
problem of qualified personnel for appointment as judges as well as for
Muslim
lawyers who will be qualified to practice before these special courts that we
are speaking about. This is indicated by the results of a special bar
examination conducted by the Supreme Court, especially for Muslims who
will practice, as well as those who are going to be appointed judges of the
Sharia
Courts. I remember that in one special examination, which is I think the only
examination given by the Supreme Court for such special Muslim examinees,
there were, I think, about 75 examinees and only 17 passed the bar exam. In
other words, not all Muslims are qualified to be appointed judges of the
Sharia Courts perhaps for lack of adequate preparation and knowledge of
this Sharia law. It is not as simple as we think it is. I think Commissioner
Alonto will bear us out on this.
MR. UKA: Madam President, that is precisely why they are given special
seminars, because there is the provision of the Islamic law on property and
personal
rights.
MR. FOZ: It is such a complicated system.
MR. UKA: The Supreme Court gives them some seminars. As a matter of fact,
those who passed really did very great work in the seminars, and some of
them
were even sent to Cairo by the government.
MR. FOZ: For special training, yes.
MR. UKA: Those who passed with good grades were sent there, and when
they came back, they became executive judges. Again, let me cite Corocoy
Moson, and
all the others who passed that examination. This year, as I said, there will
again be a mini-bar examination to be conducted by the Supreme Court. It
was
supposed to be given last December, but then they had to postpone it. And
many are now actually preparing for that.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, because of that serious shortage of qualified
personnel even for practice before the Muslim courts, I think it would be also
a
little inconceivable for Christian lawyers of the regular courts we are
speaking of the regular courts to handle special questions involving the
Sharia law. It is really out of the question; it is impossible. If most of the
Muslims themselves are not qualified to be appointed judges or even to
practice Muslim law before the Muslim courts, it would be really quite difficult
for judges of regular courts, let us say, of the RTCs, to apply the
Sharia law. It would take several months and years of training.
MR. UKA: Madam President, Commissioner Padilla posed a nice and beautiful
question: Suppose the litigation is between a Muslim and a Christian? What
does
the Committee say about that?
MR. ALONTO: When the litigation is regarding a question that could be
resolved by a national law, naturally the national law will apply.
MR. UKA: That is what I was going to answer.
MR. ALONTO: But this is a case where the persons involved are all belonging
to the same ideological culture; both litigants are Muslims.
MR. UKA: In other words this is only a special court for Muslims to solve the
problem of property and personal laws.
MR. ALONTO: With regard to what Commissioner Foz said, I would like to
invite the Commissioners attention to the provision which says: The
Organic Act
may likewise provide for special courts. But with this provision, the
implementation is going to take time, and in the meantime, we would have
to provide
for qualified people to man those special courts.
THE PRESIDENT: So the matter can be left to Congress. There should be no
quarrel about that.
MR. ALONTO: Yes, so why are we fighting over this?
MR. UKA: I see. Now, what happens to my amendment which is to use SHALL
instead of may?
MR. ALONTO: It is accepted by the Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee has accepted that amendment.
MR. ALONTO: We are mandating Congress to provide for a special court.
MR. MAAMBONG: Before we vote on these amendments, may I seek
clarification from either Commissioner Alonto or Commissioner Uka? I
understand that this
codification of Muslim personal laws was done to allay the Muslim Filipinos
feeling of alienation from the countrys cultural mainstream. As a matter of
fact, this decree provided for the formal codification of Muslim personal laws
based on its adat (customary) and Sharia (religious) laws. My first
question of Commissioner Alonto is this: Does the Commissioner find a
necessity in the future of also codifying the Muslim criminal laws?
MR. ALONTO: Preliminarily I would like to inform the Commissioner that I
myself have not read this book on Muslim personal laws authored by
President
Marcos, not believing in whatever he has done because he deceived the
Muslims in this country.
But there is a provision here which directs the legislative assemblies of the
autonomous regions to codify their customary or local laws.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, in the future there is the possibility that
there will be a code of Muslim personal laws to suit the Muslims and a code
of
Muslim criminal laws?
MR. ALONTO: Not only a possibility, but it is a mandate on the legislative

assemblies of autonomous regions. That is the main reason for their being.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. I would like to address my next question, perhaps, to
Commissioner Bennagen. Would there be a need, to the Commissioners
knowledge, of
also codifying the personal and criminal laws for the Cordillera?
MR. BENNAGEN: Not only for the Cordillera but for all other indigenous
communities in the country. As a matter of fact, there is an ongoing study at
the UP
College of Law being conducted by a team of lawyers and anthropologists to
codify existing laws among indigenous communities as well as lowland ethnic
laws
so that eventually they shall be recognized in their own terms as part of the
national law.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you. I think the Commissioners answers will help us
decide on this issue.
MR. BENNAGEN: The idea is to grant this equality that they deserve.
MR. PADILLA: What we need is integration with equality, not so much stress
on peculiarities that are accidental within the nation and the Filipino people.
We recognize the right to religious freedom; we recognize the customary law
in the absence of statutory law; we recognize that in a litigation between
Muslim brothers, the Islamic Sharia law should be applied. Commissioner Foz
says it is very hard for a judge in the Regional Trial Court to decide a
litigation that involves the personal or family relations among Muslims. I do
not think that is correct. As long as the issues are correctly stated and
presented and the law applicable is placed in issue clearly, then a good judge
can properly decide the issue. He need not be a Muslim to apply the proper
law. But what I am saying is, within these provinces that will constitute, say,
Muslim Mindanao, chances are that the judges will be Muslim Filipinos, so
there is no need for special courts. But even assuming that he be a Christian
judge, if he acts as he should with impartiality and with honesty applying
the proper Islamic Sharia law, then there will be justice and recognition of
the rights of the Muslim litigants.
What I am trying to stress is, in my opinion, there is no need to multiply the
courts. I am not denying the fact that our Muslim brothers must have justice
in accordance with their Islamic Sharia law, especially on family rights. But
must it be done by special judges and special courts?
Madam President, in conflict of laws, a municipal court what I mean by
municipal court is a domestic court may not be fully aware of the foreign
law
applicable but if that law is alleged and proven, and if the law is applicable,
the local court should adopt the foreign law applicable as part of the
municipal law. And when there is a conflict of laws, justice demands that the
proper law in accordance with the rules of private international law be
applied but it need not be applied by a foreign judge; it can be applied by our
own judge, our own courts.
And this question should not be made part of the Constitution. The Article on
the Judiciary says our judicial system is vested in the Supreme Court and
other lower courts that may be created by law. But here we are preempting
or we are placing a priori the requirement of a special court which should be
left to Congress rather than constitutionalizing the decrees of President
Marcos which not only would recognize their existence and validity but would
raise them to a higher category. I do not think there is necessity for that.
That is the point of my amendment. I want to make it clear that I am not
against Muslim autonomy, particularly the application of proper personal law
on
litigations among them, but that can be applied within our judicial system.
MR. UKA: Madam President.
MR. UKA: In order to implement the nice suggestion of my friend,
Commissioner Padilla, why do we not require the Sharia and other laws to be
part of the
curricula of the colleges of law in this country? In that way every lawyer or
would-be lawyer will be able to know what is Sharia law and other
customary
laws so that nobody will be ignorant about them. If we can add to our legal
curricula international law or other laws for that matter, why could we not
integrate also this Muslim law and other customary laws? They do this in
Indonesia where they have what they call unity in diversity.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. That would be submitted to the Supreme Court
for whatever action it may deem proper to take.
Now, the Chair thinks there has been too much time already consumed on
this question of whether or not to have special courts.
MR. BENNAGEN: Just one sentence, Madam President.

I think meaningful autonomy demands that the juridical processes should be
given full play in the autonomous regions, and to be able to do that, we
should
allow the setting up of special courts to complement those other processes
and structures that will be set up later on.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to refresh ourselves: The Committee had accepted the
Ople amendment in Section 2. We will vote first on the proposed amendment
of
Commissioner Padilla.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, on the Ople amendment as revised, may I
propound some questions?
MR. RODRIGO: In the Ople amendment as revised, the first four lines of
Section 2 read: THE CONGRESS SHALL ENACT AN ORGANIC ACT FOR EACH
AUTONOMOUS REGION
WITH THE ASSISTANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF A REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE
COMMISSION. There is no provision here on how this consultative
commission will be
created, how it will be constituted. Does not the Commissioner think that
there should be such a provision?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in the original form this was going to be a
constitutional commission whose members shall be nominated by
multisectoral bodies
and appointed by the President. Now, I have complied with the wishes of
other proponents and some members of the Committee to reduce the level
of
participation in drafting the organic act at regional level from a constitutional
commission to just a consultative commission, the understanding being
that Congress will create this commission.
MR. RODRIGO: Does not the Commissioner think that it should be spelled out
that it will be created by Congress?
MR. OPLE: Yes, in compliance with the Commissioners desire, we may

reinstate the clause that was lost earlier. Will Commissioner Bennagen read
that?
MR. BENNAGEN: It reads: WITH THE ASSISTANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF A
REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION WHOSE MEMBERS SHALL BE
COMPOSED OF MULTISECTORAL
REPRESENTATIVES TO BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
MR. RODRIGO: That is better. Now we know how it is going to be constituted.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I accept the amendment and so I believe does the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Ople please read the first paragraph of
Section 2 which is to be submitted to a vote?
MR. OPLE: . . . COMPOSED OF MEMBERS WHO SHALL BE NOMINATED BY THE
MULTISECTORAL BODIES AND APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, it should read: THE CONGRESS SHALL ENACT AN
ORGANIC ACT FOR EACH AUTONOMOUS REGION WITH ASSISTANCE AND
PARTICIPATION OF A REGIONAL
CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION COMPOSED OF MULTISECTORAL
REPRESENTATIVES APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
MR. OPLE: Yes. Shall we settle on that final phrasing?
MR. RODRIGO: I think the first formulation by Commissioner Ople is better:
COMPOSED OF MEMBERS NOMINATED BY MULTISECTORAL BODIES AND
APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT.
MR. OPLE: With the agreement of the Committee, may I suggest that we
accept this amendment?
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, will the Committee entertain another
modification?

FR. BERNAS: I propose APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT FROM A LIST OF
NOMINEES MADE BY MULTISECTORAL BODIES.
MR. OPLE: I think that expresses it better.
FR. BERNAS: The last part should rather read: FROM A LIST OF NOMINEES
FROM MULTISECTORAL BODIES.
MR. NOLLEDO: So the first sentence, Madam President, will read: THE
CONGRESS SHALL ENACT AN ORGANIC ACT FOR EACH AUTONOMOUS
REGION WITH ASSISTANCE AND
PARTICIPATION OF A REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION COMPOSED OF
REPRESENTATIVES APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT FROM A LIST OF
NOMINEES FROM MULTISECTORAL
BODIES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to that first sentence of Section 2 as
accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment, as
On the second sentence, Mr. Chairman.
MR. NOLLEDO: The second sentence reads: THE ORGANIC ACT SHALL
DEFINE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE REGION
CONSISTING OF THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY BOTH OF WHICH SHALL BE
ELECTIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONSTITUENT POLITICAL UNITS.
That is the second sentence, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular sentence? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the same is approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: As amended by Commissioner Uka, the third sentence reads:
The Organic Act SHALL likewise provide for SPECIAL courts with personal,
FAMILY and
AND NATIONAL LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla on
this one.
MR. PADILLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it to eliminate SPECIAL courts or the whole sentence?

MR. PADILLA: To eliminate the whole sentence.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee does not accept the Padilla amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the amendment?
MR. PADILLA: The Uka amendment from may to SHALL was accepted by
the Chairman, but Commissioner Alonto has been stressing the word may
so that it
will be up to Congress, not as a mandatory duty. I would ask that my
amendment be submitted to a vote, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I have read the third sentence which is objected to by
Commissioner Padilla, Madam President. So we submit it to the Commission
for a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the amendment of Commissioner Padilla?
MR. PADILLA: It is to eliminate the entire sentence.
MR. FOZ: Is it still seasonable at this stage to offer an amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Padilla? I heard him say that what he is against
is
actually the creation of special courts, not the application of the customary
law on family relations and property rights.
So if I may, I would like to offer an amendment that instead of deleting the
entire provision or sentence, it be made to read in this manner: The Organic
Act may likewise provide THAT THE CUSTOMARY LAW ON FAMILY RELATIONS
AND PROPERTY SHALL BE MADE APPLICABLE within the autonomous region
etc.
That would eliminate the requirement that special courts be organized.
MR. PADILLA: I would have no objection to the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee does not accept the amendment, Madam
President.
MR. FOZ: With this amendment, this would leave Congress to find out if there
is really a need for establishing special courts or for the regular courts to
handle what it is that may arise involving customary law.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the courts are now existing. This is just a
recognition of the existence of Sharia courts which are actually functioning
according to Commissioner Uka.
MR. FOZ: But we have to realize that even before the formal establishment of
these Sharia courts, disputes over the same matters were being resolved in
the old customary ways of the Muslims. It was just formalized with the
promulgation of those Marcos decrees. So we leave to Congress the
discretion to
study further whether special courts are really necessary.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we do not inhibit Congress from amending
these decrees or even totally disregarding them and passing other laws
similar to
these decrees.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Padilla two
clarificatory questions?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I recall that in previous practice, the courts of first
instance, acting as special courts with special jurisdiction, act as land
registration courts. We have now established the Judicial and Bar Council. Is
it the Commissioners intention that, for example, an appointee to the RTC or
CFI in Mindanao will have to be determined by the Judicial and Bar Council,
keeping in mind that judges for appointment in those places should know
something about Muslim laws? Is that the concept of Commissioner Padilla
without the necessity of creating a specialized court?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, without the necessity of creating or continuing to maintain
these special courts.
Regarding the appointment of judges, we have approved the Article on the
Judiciary requiring that such appointment by the President come from a list
of
recommendees. Naturally, the autonomous region will also propose
nominees who are not only qualified, honest, good dispensers of justice, but
also with
some knowledge of the Islamic Sharia law. But even if a particular judge
does not master or does not know so much about the Islamic law, a good
judge can
always decide with honesty the legal issues involved and the proper law
applicable.
MR. DE LOS REYES: With the explanation of that concept, I would like to
support the stand of Commissioner Padilla.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I have accepted the amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Foz.
THE PRESIDENT: So the amendment is no longer to delete but to adopt the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Foz?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because my idea, after all, as correctly stated by
Commissioner Foz, is not to deny the Muslim community their rights.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Foz read his proposed amendment to the
third sentence in lieu of the third sentence of the Ople amendment.
MR. FOZ: The sentence reads: The Organic Act may provide THAT THE
CUSTOMARY LAW ON FAMILY RELATIONS AND PROPERTY MAY BE MADE
APPLICABLE, etc.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, that is putting completely a different thing
from the essence of this provision. And besides that, we had been creating
special courts, juvenile courts and circuit courts. There has never been any
opposition to this. These special courts have been created to deal on special,
particular cases. We are merely suggesting the creation of a special court in
the autonomous region to deal on particular, special cases. Why the
objection
to this? I cannot understand, Madam President.
It was 5:50 p.m.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I be recognized?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Upon consultation with Commissioners Padilla, Uka, Foz
and members of the Committee on Local Governments, we are offering this
proposal
which will meet the ideas and objections of the authors of these different
proposals. The sentence will read: The Organic Act may likewise provide for
A
JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT WILL APPLY PERSONAL, FAMILY and property law
consistent with the provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL LAW.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may we change the word will to SHALL?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is accepted, Madam President. Does the Committee
accept the amendment?
MR. OPLE: Is it understood that the special courts now existing will be
preserved, and this is without prejudice to more special courts to be created
as
may be determined necessary in the future?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Special courts now existing, pursuant to the provision in
the Transitory Provisions which we intend to propose to this honorable
Commission, will not be automatically abolished. This provision precisely will
give us a certain leeway, more elbowroom, for the creation of more
specialized courts but within the provisions of our Constitution and the
national law.
THE PRESIDENT: So we preserve the phrase on Judicial Power?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, the phrase on Judicial Power is already embraced in the
phrase with the provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL LAW.
MR. PADILLA: I would like to state that if by that term judicial system the
interpretation is not only to preserve and maintain the special courts but
even to organize more special courts, I am not in agreement with the
proposal as drafted because precisely my main point was to eliminate special
courts so
that the regular trial courts, both regional and municipal, may undertake the
enforcement and application of the personal customary laws of these special
regions.
MR. OPLE: But that is the meaning attached to the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: With due respect to Commissioner Padilla, Commissioner
Oples observations find support among the members of the Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: This matter has been sufficiently discussed by the Members
of the Commission. May I ask that we vote on this amendment as proposed
by
Commissioners de los Reyes, Foz and others?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner de los Reyes read the third sentence?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The Organic Act may likewise provide for A JUDICIAL
SYSTEM THAT SHALL APPLY PERSONAL, FAMILY and property law consistent
with the
provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL LAW.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, before we vote, may I ask a question?
MR. RODRIGO: We now have a judicial system all over the country, national
in scope. Now, when judicial system is mentioned in this proposed
amendment,
does this mean a separate judicial system from our present existing judicial
system?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, it shall not be separate.
MR. RODRIGO: It is not separate.
MR. NOLLEDO: The judicial system exists within the autonomous region. It
says there consistent with the provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL
LAW.
So it is not separate.
MR. RODRIGO: What is the wording again?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The Congress may likewise provide for A JUDICIAL
SYSTEM THAT SHALL APPLY PERSONAL, FAMILY and property law consistent
with the
MR. RODRIGO: That is it. Is that judicial system distinct from the regular
national judicial system that we have now: Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
Regional Trial Courts, et cetera?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: It is not distinct?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is part of that judicial system.
MR. OPLE: It is part of the judicial system of the Republic of the Philippines
under this Constitution, but at the same time, it has the flexibility to
accommodate the special needs of the autonomous region, Madam
President.
MR. RODRIGO: But it is within the judicial system.
MR. OPLE: It is within the Constitution and the law.
MR. DAVIDE: In the light of the statement of Commissioner Ople and the
explanation given by him, I would propose an amendment. Instead of
consistent with
the provisions of this Constitution AND THE NATIONAL LAW, it should read:
SUBJECT TO the provisions of this Constitution ON JUDICIAL POWER AND
THE
NATIONAL LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner de los Reyes say?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The fact of the matter is that I do not see much of a
difference; I think it is a matter of style, but I have no real objection to the
proposal of Commissioner Davide.
THE PRESIDENT: It is stronger, SUBJECT TO the provisions etc.
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment, and I hope the Committee does the
same, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Can we vote now on the third sentence that has been read?
MR. FOZ: I am really bothered by the term judicial system. Will the
Commissioner please read the whole sentence, as amended, again?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The Organic Act may likewise provide for A JUDICIAL
SYSTEM THAT SHALL APPLY PERSONAL, FAMILY and property law SUBJECT TO
the provisions
of this Constitution ON JUDICIAL POWER AND THE NATIONAL LAW.
FR. BERNAS: Since this is subject to the provisions on judicial power, it is
really within the existing judicial system, so perhaps we should avoid the use
of the general term judicial system and instead we should use COURTS OR
SPECIAL COURTS.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we go back to the old issue.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think if we understand the meaning of system as existing
within a framework of a multicultural, multiethnic nation, there should be no
apprehension about the confusion that might arise in equating the special
judicial system of the autonomous regions with the national judicial system,
because the fact is that there are a number of systems existing within the
national framework.
MR. FOZ: But, Madam President, the term judicial system gives the idea
that within the autonomous region, there shall be a Supreme Court, a Court
of
Appeals, a Regional Trial Court, and municipal courts of its own. That is the
implication of using the term judicial system even if it is still under our
Constitution. When we say still under our judicial system, then decisions of
the Supreme Court of the region may be appealed to the national Supreme
Court. That is what we were saying. So if that is the case, we might as well
go to our original formulation of special courts.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in this context the judicial system is really a
subsystem or a subset of the national judicial system. And the reason this is
employed as a proposal from the President earlier was precisely because it
could accommodate innovative forms of the dispensation of justice in the
future
as Congress may determine It will partake of some legal self-sufficiency and
to that extent, it is congruent with the special needs of an autonomous
region. So, it is congruent with the special needs and conditions of an
autonomous region but subject to the provisions of the Constitution on
judicial
power and national law.
MR. BENGZON: I would like to call for a vote on these two issues: First,
whether or not to use the term judicial system. If that is defeated, then we
will call for a vote on the use of special courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to that?
MR. PADILLA: I am against the use of special courts and object more
against the use of judicial system within our judicial system.
MR. BENGZON: But those are the two issues that are before the floor.
MR. BENGZON: I have a motion, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the issue, Madam President, is whether we revert to
the original provision using special courts or we adopt the de los Reyes
amendment using JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
MR. PADILLA: My amendment is to delete the whole sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote first whether we will delete or not.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of deleting the last sentence of

Section 2, starting with the words The Organic Act may likewise provide,
please
raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
their hand.)
hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor, 25 against and 1 abstention; the
amendment is lost.
Now, let us put to a vote the original proposal of the Committee that with
special courts.
MR. NOLLEDO: It reads: The Organic Act shall likewise provide for SPECIAL
courts with personal, family and property law jurisdiction consistent with the
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: So, if this proposal gets a sufficient number of votes, we do
not vote anymore on the judicial system.
As many as are in favor of the Committee proposal as so worded, please
hand.)
hand.)
The results show 24 votes in favor, 4 against and 1 abstention; the proposal
as recommended by the Committee is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on the same section?
MR. SARMIENTO: It is on the same section, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to read the second paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo may please proceed.

MR. NOLLEDO: It reads: The creation of the autonomous region shall be
EFFECTIVE WHEN approved by majority of the VOTES CAST BY THE
constituent units IN A
PLEBISCITE CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE PROVIDED THAT ONLY PROVINCES,
CITIES AND GEOGRAPHIC AREAS VOTING FAVORABLY IN SAID PLEBISCITE
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE
AUTONOMOUS REGION.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been approved already.
MR. NOLLEDO: It was approved but being part of Section 2, I recommend that
the proposal be approved if there is no objection.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, did I hear the Chairman correct when he
said GEOGRAPHIC AREAS?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
second paragraph, as amended, is approved.
Shall we read the whole Section 2 now?
MR. NOLLEDO: The whole Section 2 now reads: The Congress shall enact an
Organic Act for each autonomous region with the assistance and
participation of
the regional consultative commission composed of representatives appointed
by the President from a list of nominees from multisectoral bodies. The
Organic
Act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of
the executive department and legislative assembly both of which shall be
elective and representative of the constituent political units. The Organic
Acts shall likewise provide for special courts with personal, family and
and national law. This is the first paragraph, Madam President. The second
paragraph of Section 2 reads: The creation of the autonomous region shall
be effective when approved by majority of the votes cast by the constituent
units in a plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces,
cities and geographic areas voting favorably in said plebiscite shall be
included in the autonomous region.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, on that third sentence on special courts,

the committee report used the word may, not shall.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepted the Uka amendment shall, and
there was no objection to it.
MR. PADILLA: It was never put to a vote. It was only the Chairman who
immediately accepted it while we were in a period of interpellations.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we will put it to a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The matter has already been settled; the same has been
approved with the word shall.
As many as are in favor of Section 2 as read, please raise their hand.
hand.)
hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor, none against and 1 abstention; Section 2
is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Regalado be
recognized.
Before I make any proposal, this would be in the nature of a parliamentary
inquiry because the equivalent provision, which is Section 5 of this Article,
was discussed when I was in the hospital, and I am not very sure, based on
my readings of the Journal, whether it reflects completely what took place
here.
Under Section 3 now, it is provided that:
I understand from the Journal that, with respect to Section 5 of the first
portion of this Article, the same words were used except that it ended with
the
word regions, to read: The President of the Philippines shall exercise
general supervision over autonomous regions, plus the other statements
made
therein.
In the approved resolution on the Article on the Executive, in Section 17
thereof, the second sentence states:
The President shall exercise general supervision over all local governments
as may be provided by law.
This phrase as may be provided by law, which is supposed to be the
delimitation on the power of general supervision of the President over all
local
governments, does not appear in either Section 5 or Section 3 of this Article
on Local Governments. Now, this makes a lot of difference because the
present
rule is that the power of general supervision of the President under the
Constitution is not self-executing. There must be an implementing law. It was
so
understood under the 1935 Constitution, and it was so understood and
adopted by reference in the 1973 Constitution, that the use of the phrase as
provided
by law was a limitation on the power of general supervision of the President
over local governments. As a matter of fact, it was pointed out in the case
of Planas vs. Gil, in the decision penned by Justice Laurel, that this general
supervision over local governments as provided by law is actually in the
nature of a compromise resulting from the conflict of views in that body,
mainly between the historical view, which recognizes the right of local
self-government, and the legal theory which sanctions the possession by the
State of absolute control over local governments.
In the previous cases decided by the Supreme Court the case of Planas vs.
Gil, and the case of Villena vs. Secretary of the Interior the Court just
proceeded on the assumption that with or without a statutory provision
granting the President general supervision over local governments, the
President had
a residual power to discipline officers of the local governments. But in the
subsequent case of Lacson vs. Roque, which appears to be the case in point
now, and which was promulgated on January 10, 1953, the Supreme Court
pointed out that, unlike control over the ministries, with respect to local
governments the power of general supervision of the President over such
local governments shall only be insofar as the same may be provided by law.
That
was the reason it held that President Quirino did not have the power to
suspend Mayor Lacson, because neither the Charter of Manila nor any other
law gave
him that power of suspension.
I am wondering whether the Commission or the Committee has made a
complete turnaround by now merely providing that the President, with or
without a law,
shall have the power of general supervision over local governments,
meaning, the so-called residual powers of the central government over the
local
governments, or whether there must be an enabling law because, as pointed
out by Justice Tuazon: It is one thing to control, and another to suspend.
The Supreme Court even pointed out that insofar as supervision of local
governments is concerned, there must only be a limited authority. That is
why the
law says only general supervision as provided by law, because such a
limited authority would not be in contravention of, but is precisely in
adherence
to, the provisions intended to safeguard local autonomy. The trend in our
formulations here is to give more and more local autonomy to local
governments.
If we eliminate the phrase as provided by law insofar as the general
supervision over local of officials by the President of the Philippines is
concerned, then we are delimiting instead of expanding local autonomy.
And that was precisely why in a resolution I submitted to the Committee on
the Executive I saw to it that that phrase general supervision is to be
maintained, as distinguished from control over Ministries and only as
provided by law. Otherwise, the President may exercise the so-called
general
supervision untrammeled by any provision of law which restricts his power
and it will virtually eliminate the line or the distinction between control and
supervision.
THE PRESIDENT: So, in brief, what is Commissioner Regalados point with
respect to Section 3? Does it conflict with any other provision?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, my point is that it conflicts with the
second sentence of Section 17 of the Article on the Executive which has
already been
passed on Second Reading and which I believe should be the proper wording
for the reasons I have given, and such a case has already been decided.
THE PRESIDENT: The new Section 8 of the Article on Local Governments also
states that The President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision
over local governments.
MR. REGALADO: Period. Whereas under Section 17, Madam President, the
second sentence says, He shall exercise general supervision over all local
governments as may be provided by law and shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is the Commissioners point.
FR. BERNAS: I think in our deliberations yesterday, the intention was clearly
not to expand the power of the President but rather, precisely, to limit the
power of the President towards ensuring that laws are followed. The
interpretation was given that general supervision simply means that the
superior sees
to it that the inferior acts within the powers granted by law. Moreover, when
we amended Section 8, there was also a clarification in order to further
emphasize autonomy vis-a-vis the President. We also said that there is a
hierarchy of supervisions: municipalities over barangays, provinces over
municipalities and component cities, and then the President, over provinces
and highly urbanized cities, and I suppose now also over autonomous
regions.
But the object is mainly that the President, as executive, and by virtue of his
oath to make sure that laws are complied with, would only have this power
of general supervision, not of control. His power is mainly to ensure that laws
are followed. So, clearly, the intention is not to expand the power of the
President.
The cases just cited are correct; precisely, the power to discipline was not
recognized on the part of the President because the existing law at that time
gave disciplinary power, initiation of disciplinary authority, to somebody else.
I think the case involved the question of whether the President could
initiate disciplinary action against an elective official.
MR. REGALADO: That was the case of Planas vs. Gil.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. And since the charter said that only the provincial board
could initiate it, since that was the law, then that had to be applicable.
MR. REGALADO: In the case of Lacson vs. Roque, there was no provision
whatsoever in the Charter of the City of Manila. In the case of Villena vs. the
Secretary of the Interior, they applied the Administrative Code. Actually, my
only question is: Why have we eliminated the phrase as provided by law
which is actually a safeguard for local autonomy?
FR. BERNAS: The intention, as I recall, was that the power of general
supervision should be dependent on existing law because supervision means
making sure
that the laws are followed.
MR. REGALADO: I agree that the power of supervision is dependent on
existing law but the extent of supervision must be spelled out by law.
FR. BERNAS: I think what we were saying is that when we speak of
autonomy, we are speaking of autonomy not just vis-a-vis the President but
also vis-a-vis
the Legislature. So that while we are curtailing the power of the President,
we are also curtailing the power of the Legislature.
MR. REGALADO: I am referring here only to the power of the President not
with respect to the provincial government over the municipalities constituent
thereof. I am only wondering, and I am sure there will be questions because
of the disparity of the expression used therein, why under the Article on the
Executive, the power of general supervision is subject to and as may be
provided by law whereas here, that phrase which assumes some vital
importance
is completely eliminated in two sections.
FR. BERNAS: That is why I think when we discussed this yesterday, the
Chairman of the Committee on Style and also the Chairman of the
Sponsorship Committee
saw the possible necessity of reconciling the two. In other words, by dropping
the phrase as may be provided by law, we are cutting the discretion of
Congress to give or not to give authority to the President. The intention was
not to strengthen the President but rather to strengthen autonomy vis-a-vis
the Legislature.
MR. REGALADO: Was it therefore the understanding of the body and of the
Committee because I was not here at that time that the power of
general
supervision of the President over local governments lies purely on the fact
that he is the national head of the government and not because it is a power
vouchsafed to him by provision of law, in other words, a rethinking, a 360degree turn from the present conventional rule?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is right.

MR. RODRIGO: For the information of Commissioner Regalado, who was not
here when this matter was taken up, I, as Chairman of the Committee on
Style, called
attention to the duplication of this provision on the power of general
supervision of the President over local governments. I called attention to the
fact
that Section 5, now Section 7 of the proposed provision that we are
discussing, is substantially the same as Section 17, second sentence thereof
under the
Article on the Executive, except and I called attention to this for the
phrase as may be provided by law which appears in Section 17 of the
Article
on the Executive but does not appear in Section 5 of the proposal. My
interest was to find out the desire of the body because the Committee on
Style will
have to eliminate one to avoid a duplication. And it was decided by the body
to remove that sentence from the Article on the Executive, transfer it to the
Article on Local Governments, and follow the wording of the provision in the
Article on Local Governments, which is minus the phrase as may be
provided by
law.
MS. AQUINO: In the proceedings yesterday, it was made clear that the
intention of the body is to sustain and adhere to the settled jurisprudence
that
general supervisory powers only mean the power to oversee an inferior body
and it does not constitute any restraining authority on the part of the
national
government over the body being supervised. And the deletion of the phrase
as may be provided by law was deliberately intended to deny Congress
any
legislation that might enlarge the supervisory powers of the President
previously defined.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that clear now to Commissioner Regalado?
MR. REGALADO: In other words, was it the sense of the body that the present
Section 3 under the Article on Autonomous Regions and Section 5 under the
preceding provision on Local Governments will be deleted and that the
second sentence of Section 17 will be transposed to the Article on Local
Governments
minus the phrase as may be provided by law?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: And was it the sense of the body that the power of general
supervision by the President over local governments is no longer dependent
upon
any statutory fiat but inheres from his position as head of the government?
MR. RODRIGO: I am not in a position to answer that. All I was interested in
was to find out which I should delete because of the duplication.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: The answer is yes.
THE PRESIDENT: May we first allow the Chairman of the Committee to react
to the statement of Commissioner Regalado about the basis.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, my answer is yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is affirmative.
On my notes on the proceedings yesterday, the observation of Commissioner
Rodrigo on Section 17 of the Article on the Executive is correct. And on
Section
7, formerly Section 5, we stated that: The President of the Philippines shall
exercise general supervision over local governments. And this is followed by
the provisions of Section 4.1 of the 1973 Constitution which states:
functions.
That is what I got in our proceedings yesterday.
MR. SARMIENTO: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any proposed amendment to Section 3?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that we vote on Section 3, as
amended, which is now Section 16. May we ask the Chairman of the
Committee to read it?
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 3 on Autonomous Regions reads: The President of
the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions
to ensure
that laws are faithfully executed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular section? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; Section 3, as amended, is approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee believes that the next three
sections may take a lot of time to discuss, and so we ask that the Floor
Leader
move for adjournment until tomorrow morning.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I just want to put on record the proponents of
Section 2: Commissioners Ople, Nolledo, Foz, Monsod, Rama, Bennagen,
Alonto,
Villacorta, Azcuna, Uka and Muoz Palma.
Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, there are so any proponents for Section
4. So I join the manifestation of our Chairman, Commissioner Nolledo. I move
that
we adjourn the session until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
It was 6:39 p.m.

RCC 41-60

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCC 41-60

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R.C.C. NO.

Sa gitna ng katotohanang ito, kaming mga Commissioners ay nagtitipon sa

The President is present.

(Communication No. 345 Constitutional Commission of 1986)

(Communication No. 349 Constitutional Commission of 1986)

Communication from Mr. Leopoldo C. Segovia of Atlag, Malolos, Bulacan,

MR. RAMA.: I move that we continue the consideration of Committee Report

Vice-President. An explicit provision of this Constitution, which makes

corruption or betrayal of public trust. But may I submit, Madam President,

heart of democracy; it can kill democracy perhaps to a degree not inferior to

On page 3, Section 7 has reference to the Ombudsman. Madam President,

May I state a brief reason for this amendment, Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.

MR OPLE: I accept the amendment, Madam President.

MR. FOZ: I would like to amend the amendment to the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Rodrigo objecting to the amendment, as

DECLARE UNDER OATH HIS ASSETS AND

MR. DAVIDE: Just for clarification, Madam President.

MR. MONSOD: The amendment as reworded will now read: A PUBLIC

AUTOMATICALLY FORFEITING HIS OFFICE

ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY DURING HIS

on the matter because we were gradually dwindling in number. I think there

especially the head of an office that will be affected by a proposed

MR. DE CASTRO: I will give way to the Honorable Rodrigo.

We have an amendment because there was an error on Section 8. It was the

of the Sandiganbayan are appointed by the President with the concurrence of

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the resolution was referred by this

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born

MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my amendment is on page 3, line 9 of Section

MR. COLAYCO: Yes.

REV. RIGOS: Madam President.

MR. RAMA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair hear the amendment of Commissioner

used. It would be more expressive than Tanodbayan. Besides the word

of Commissioner Guingona and other Commissioners who have also

MR. MONSOD: May we speak, Madam President?

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.

COORDINATION OF VARIOUS OFFICES, AND CORRECT IRREGULARITIES AND

This morning, we approved Commissioner Oples amendment on Section 6,

MR. MONSOD: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the Commissioners proposed amendment that he

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.

So, if Commissioner Maambong is willing to accept that insertion in the

of the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government, so I ask

So that we do not have to go to the usual procedure of deleting and putting

BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: I believe Commissioner Padilla is not insisting on his

that he should be the protector of the people. It is meant to be instructive as

minds since I talked to them this morning? Could we change it to 35 years

MR. NATIVIDAD: I am a little bit bored because all my amendments had

MR. ROMULO: Would the Gentleman consider leaving him just as a

MR. NATIVIDAD: What I understand from my prior conversation with the

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.

State. Therefore the process as it goes is impracticable. It is also

recognizing that an impeachment procedure, which is a judicial function,

caused the resignation of an American President because, in the words of

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Still on the same proposed

MR. REGALADO: May I hear the proposed amendment?