sALON(;A-l)ril{n l.
'l'A l)lillA'l'li 27
Salonga-Peralta Debate on
Proportional Representation of Political
Parties in the Various Committees
MR. SALONGA. Mt. Speaker, I must confess that after having
delivered my privilege speech on Constitution Day pleading for sobriety,
I am ovetwhelmed by a sense of reluctance to enter this debate knorv-
ing that, uncontrolled, this debate could fan the flames of partisanship
and the resulting fire mav consume not only our time, but also the un-
questioned talents of those rvho have spoken before me and, what is
worse, it may reduce io ashes our great desire to approach issues from
a non-partisan viewpoint to the end that we might get down to v/ork
at last and enact vital measures to which our people are entitled. I
shall therefore limit myself, i\Ir. Speaker, to a dispassionate discussion
of the points at issue knowing that it is {ar better to light a candle
than to curse the darkness. lThatever our viervs here maybe can, in
subsequent yeats, be taken against us. The precedents that rve lay
down here may favor our side for a while but when the tables are
turned probably within this year or next year or two years from
-this same precedent can be invoked and invoked authoritatively
against us. It is for this reason that v'e should interpret the Con-
stitutional provision hete without regard to the immediate assaults of
temporary political advantage, without regard to the expediency of the
passing hour or the vaunted superiority in numbers. Supetiority in
numbers is a superiority rvith a limited tenure. fn one great shift* the
position of Speaker may be declared vacant and the new majority, ',vhat-
ever be their respective political complexion, can indulge in this very
same abuse that was used against them. And in the thinking of og-
dinary men, nothing can be sweeter than sweet vengeance. The only
superiority in which you and I can take pride is the superiority of prin-
ciple because this is the only superiority that transcends numbers and
* ?he shift in power became a reality not long after the debate on March g
7962. The new Speaker Comelio Villareal. (LP) defeated Daniel Romualdez
(NP), the Speake! who presided at this debate.
z6
temporarv sliifting majorities. This is the only superiority that com-
nlaucls the respcct of eycu the most unprincipled man. It is therefore
on that high level of dispassionate discussion that I have persuaded
nrysclf to enter this debate, at the bidding of our Minority Floor Leader.
I shall first try to dispose of certirin conceptions that may obstruct
our tl-rinking. It has been said here b1' our distinguished friend from
Sorsogon that our Constitution presupposes a two-party system of gov-
ernment and that this necessarily derives from the presidential system
of government. If I am right in stating his proposition I must norv
beg his forgiveness fcr saying that norvhere in the Constitution and
non,here in the concept of the definition of a presidential system of
government is there any remote implication that there should be only
trvo parties or: that only two parties should be given encouragement'
The Constitution speaks of "proportional representation" of parties in
Section 12. And may I take the liberty of quoting Section 12 verbatim:
"There shall be a Cotnmission on Appointments consist-
ing of trvelve Senators and trvelve Members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each House, respectivellt, on the
basis of proportiona.l representation of the political parties
therein. The President of the Senate shall be the Chairman
ex-officio of the Commission, btrt shall not vote, except in
case of tie."
Reference u,as made here last night to the united States as having
a presidential system of government.
MR. PtrRALTA. Mr. Speaker, u'ill the gentleman yield, or would
the gentleman consent to a brief interruption on that important point
wherein he made reference to a so-called srveeping statenent that your
hurnble servant made last night.
MR. SALONGA. I am sure that I rvill take up Your Honor's
question.
MR. PERALTA. It is important that it should be traversed.
MR. SALONGA. Mr' Speaker, I am rvilling to be interpellated
after my speech shall have been fully delivered because there are cettain
maters that I rvould like to take gp in conjunction with that first pro-
position.
a(l
L<' s,\1,()N(;A
(Continuing.) Refercnce rvas nritdc to the LJr.ritcd Srrrrcs rrs l'ravirrg
a presidential system of government ancl as havirrg only a two-party
system. The two-palty svstem in the Ur-rited Strrtes is indeecl a rcality but
it u'as never decreed b',' its Constitution. There have been many attempts
in the past to break alvirv frorn it during the time of Theodore
Roosevelt and later, the Progresive Party - under Henry \7alace. The
only thing that can be said of the two-party system is that the thinking
of the American people for the moment is undoubtedly for it but there
is nothing to prevent the people from installing the multi-party system
for there is nothing in the institutions of democracy in the United States
that ptecludes a multi-party system.
The Parliameutary System of Government and its instabilities have
been pointed out in support of the proposition that shifting political
realignments should not be reflected in the composition of the Com-
mission on Appointments. Here again, I am constrained to disagree.
England l-ras one oI the most stable governments in the rvorld. It is a
parliamentary democracy. The Priure Minister is the head of the gov-
ernment; he is a member of the Legislative body and they have the
strongest two-party system in the rvorld today. Vhat I am merely say-
ing, Mr. Speaker, is that the interpretation of Section 12 cannot depend
on our o\r/n private interpretations or notions of a t\yo-party system
or multi-party system,
Stability in governrnent, stability in Administration, granting it to
be desirable, is not a marter of parties or parry labels. Stability is like
liberty. As one jurist puts it, it lies in the hearts of men and rvomen.
When it dies there, no Constitution, no law, no court can help it.
Iilhile it is there, rvhile it grorvs there, it needs no Constitution, no
law, and no court to save it,
Having disposed of these misconceptions let us norv turn to the
wording of the Constitution on the basis it says: ". on the basis
-
of proportional representation of the political parties therein." The
Majority Floor Leader argLres that proportional representation of the
parties therein should depend on the affiliation of a candidate based
on his certificate of candidacy." I am unable to read into the pro"
visions of the Constitution such a meaning for various reasons.
1. A party can be born anytime. It can even be born spon-
taneously. The birth of parties cannot stop and does not stop after
one has fileci his certificate of candiciacy. The lnrv does not say any-
SALONGA-I'lili;\L l r\ l.)lrlttvl'l 29
u,here tlrat in orcler to have a pafty a group o{ persons pursuing certain
political ends should be incorporated. I agree with the gentlemen ftom
Sorrogo.r, horvever, in his definition oI a party, naurely, a collectivity
of people, a group of people sharing a set of beliefs and pursuing certain
political.ndr. If rr,e l,ere to adhere to his own definition, the "Allied
foajority" or
,,Allied Minority" as someone calls it is a party. T6ey
gro,.,p of people sharing, on the basis of a certain manifesto pub-
"."'"
lished, a set of beliefs and pursuing certain political ends. Remember,
it is not the party at the time one files his certificate of candidacy. It
is the representation of the parties therein, that is, in Congtess and
since congress is a living thing it
is subject to change, and therefore the
"representation of the parties therein" can change any time'
2. If the representation of the parties therein can change any
for saying that the composition of the com-
time, is there any warrant
to periodic changes? My
mission on Appointments may be subjected
answer is a clear and emPhatic YES.
a.IshallnotinvokeaLiberalauthority.Iwouldratherinvoke
a Nacionalista authority, the very president o{ the constitutional con-
vention and since ihis rvas stated at the time that the Constitution
-
was approved by the Convention, his wotds, under the principle of ante
liten itotaru in the larv of evidence, should cafry gfeat authofity. On
February 8, 1935, during the consideration of the amendment by the
'committee
special on s"tyle, upon inquiries by delegates clarin and
Inting, Presiclent of the Convention Claro M' Recto said, and I quote:
.,Mr."thairman, it is better to place at the disposal of the Assembly at
all times the members of this Commission . If at the follos'ine day the
Assembly desires to change the members, they can do -it' These po'
sitions are positions of coirfidence and if the Assembly desires to rvith-
draw its confidence from all members or some of its members, they
could do so. It is better to give that liberty and privilege to
the As-
sembly.,, I am quoting fromlh. transcript of the proceedings of Feb-
ruary'8, 1935. In oth"t words, then, Mr' Speaker, the Commission
on Appoirrt-ents is as much at the disposal of the House as the
Speaker
officials of the House, and being at the disposal of the House,
".a,tt.,
duy, any hour, any time, they can all be changed and the change
"ry
nui"r"tiy rvill reflect the actnal political realignment in the House'
3. It is inconceivable to think that the Speaket can be changed
by a nerv aggrupation in the House and yet the composition of the Com-
l0 SAI.ONCA
mittees cannot be changed. Once the Speaker is changcd, Iet us say,
under the auspices of rhe LP's combined with the NP's rviro have dec-
lared their independence, who is there to prevent the new majority {rom
changing the composition of the committees to reflect the neur com-
bination of power in the House? It would be worse for the Majority
in power now to insist that the basis be political affiliation as o{ the
date of filing of the certificate of candidacy of the Members, for, as
pointed out b,lz the gentleman from Manila last night, all that the new
aggrupation would do rvould be to disregard the new political align-
ment and monopolize all committess slnss within their ranks there
-
are Nacionalistas and the new aggrupation can now insist with sweet
vengeance that the Nacionalista representadion based on the certificate
of candidacy should come within the ranks and only within the ranks
of the nerv political combination,
4. \7hen several gentlemen here cited the case of. Cabili us. Fran-
cisco they rvere probably unaware that the case operated against their
ou'n thesis and u'hen they cited Senate precedents, they also seemed
to be unaware that the precedents in the Senate would prove otl-rer-
nise. Let us take up the case of Cabili os. Francisco. There, two new
aggrupations came into being, the so-called Little Senate and the De-
mocratic Group. The Democratic Group reorganized the Senate to re-
flect the nerv political alignment that came into being. The Supreme
Court of the Fhilippines held that the power to reorganize and the re-
sulting reorganization \r,as beyond its jurisdiction, this being a purely
political question. Hence, to put it in another way, the Supreme Court
held in effect tbat the Senate could so reorganize itself to reflect the
new political alignment and the Supreme Court would not intervene
at the behest of those rvho believed that the composition should depend
on political meinbership at the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy. Now, for the precedents in the Senate. \What was the
situation in the Senate in 1,956? There was only one member who
belonged to the Minority; all others rvere Nacionalistas. That lone mem-
ber rvas Lorenzo Tanada of the Citizens Party. As everyone knows
hou'ever, Article VI, Section II, of the Constitution provides that each
Electoral Tribunal u,'hether in the Senate or in the House shall be com-
posed of nine members, three of whom shall be justices of the Supreme
Court to be designated by the Chief Justice and the remaining six shall
be members of the Senate or the House of Representatives as the case
sAt.()N(;A-l,l lRn l,'l'A l)1,:ltA'l'l ll
mav be rvho shall bc choscn by cach llor,rsc, thtcc trlrott ttotttittrtliotr ol'
the party having the largest nr-Lmber of vcltcs, lncl thrcc 9l rfic prrrty
having the second largest nutlber of votes. l3ut the N'Iinority ha<1 only
one, Senator Lorenzo Tanada. Did the Supren.re Coult say tllltt voLl
could do nothing erbout it, that it sfiould be blind to political reality?
No. The suprerne court confronted the situation as it existed then,
refused to give a dictionary interptetation to the language of the Con-
stitution and looked at the function of the provision; namely, the crea-
tion of an impartial and independent tribunal. It 1'ould not help that
function to harre five senators belonging to the Nacionalista Patty and
only one senator coming from the Minority. The five rvould be able
to outvore the one Senator and the three justices of the Supreme Court
no matter horv right the latter rvere. The Supreme court thus iu-
validated the selection of two Majority Senators stressing that the in-
tention \\'as to pfevent the majority from con6olling the Electoral Tri-
bgnal and that the structure is founded upon an equilibrium betn'een
the majority and the minoriry parties therein, with the three Supreme
Court justices holding the balance of polrer. This case, therefore, shows
that the Supreme Court had to contend u'ith a political realit.v, in order
to avoid absurdity in interpretation.
The question, therefore, is vrhat is the {unction of the provision
witl, respect to the commission on Appointments? \7e are told by the
commentators on our Constitution that the purpose is to fiscalize the
Executive and that this is a patt of the entire system of checks a1d ba'
lances, to give congress a share in the appointing po\r/er e.xercised ini-
tially by tiie President. We have no doubt that this is the function,
the phiiosophy, a'd end of the provision. T6at being so, horv can the
Commission iiscalize and check the President, if it ignores the rea'
lity of alignments in Congress? If there are 30 Nacionalistas who align
themselves with 29 Liberals, elect their own Speaker, would it be tair
to the new Minority for the new Nlajority of. 59 to monopolize all the
committees in Congtess, leaving nothing b the new Minority, on the
pretense that the 30 Nacionalistas can occupy the Nacionalista
-representation
in the various committees, since what is decisive is not
thl existing political alignment, bur the certificate of candidacy? To
ask the question is to answer it.
of just one independent Mem'
-dongr"rtmoreover, that instead
Supposing,
ber of such as we have now, we have 60 independent
members elected to Congress. They band together and are able to
 I
7) SA I,0N-(iA \Al ()N(;r\-l'lll{Al.l r\ l)l llA'l l ))

elect a Speaker from theit rar-rks. If we adhere to the interptetation rttrttc vct'lrrl cl,rslrcs rvill uot givc,r Peln'rirrrcnt. soltrtioll to our problern.
sought to be attached to the provision, these 60 independent Members ()[ cotrlsc, tlrc A'frtjolitl' llow cillt la1, {6.rn a solution to serve tfieir
can elect a speaker, bLlt cannot be members of the Commission on Ap- tclnl)orarv cncls --- but this is n.rost inrprudent and eventurll;';1 *ot
pointments and the various committees. Certainly this would be in- bc at thc rcceiving encl, and, \\/orsc, for venseance can be ruthless and
terpretation running riot. thorouglr. I shall, thetefore, propose a compromise solution, which,
I,earned Hand, the judges' judge, puts us in great debt to him, to nre, malr provc acceptable to all. Let not the Liberals insist on a 7
when he says "there is no surer way to misread a provision than to to 5 ratio 7 Nacionalistas and 5 I-ibetals in the composition of the
-
Conrmission on Appointurents. Let not the Nacionalistas insist on theif
read it litetally. Of course it is true that the words used, even in their
literal sense are the primary, and, ordinarily, the most reliable source 9 to 3 ratio 9 for Nncionaiistas ancl J for Liberals. Let tlre Nacional-
-
istas Dropose 7 and the Libetals i, and bi' the principle of self-deter-
of interpreting the meaning of any wtiting... but it is one of the
sruest indexes of a mature and developed iurisprudence not to make a mination, which, by the u'ay, is rr principle recognized today all over
forress out of the dictionaty, but to remember that statutes (and Con- the world, let the 11 to 12 independent aggrupatioll of Nacionalistas
stitutions ) have some purpose or object to accomplish, uthose sym- propose tbeir 2 membets. In this sense, you accept the political reality
pathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their mean- that norv exists, and u'e can thereafter get dotrn to more serious
ing." (Cabell v. Markham F. 2d. 737,739 L945). business.
-
\7e are told that the interpretation of the majority norv will in- tvIR. PERALTA. Mr. Speaker, rvill the c{istinguished gentleman
sure a 2-party system and discourage political migrations. Loyalty to from Rizal yield, the learned Constitutionalist, Dean of the Far Eastern
a party is not a matter of decree or fiat or order. There is nothing in Law School?
our Constitution that says you can have only two parties in the Phil-
ippines. But there is something in the Constitution about our freedom MR. SALONGA. I am no lor.rger Dean. I resigned after I be-
to form associations to accomplish legitimate purposes. lVhen we talk came Congressman, Your Honor,
about political migrations, let us be careful we do not involve ourselves
I,IR. PEIIALTA. Nevertheless, Dean Emeritus.
in a dilemma. The very president of the Nacionalistas is a migrant
and I do not blame him either. He was a Democrata before. He-is MR. SALONGA. By your appointrner-rt, I hope.
non' Mr. Nacionalista. f am not passing judgment on migrants as such,
but let me say this: the stucture of parties in the Philippines en- MR. PERALTA. 1Js11', Mr. Speakcr, I am constrained to per-
courages migrations. When you read the platforms of the trvo major sonally interpellate the learned gentleman from F.izal, in viel' of cettain
parties, you find almost the same pl-rrases, the same words, the same statements, u'hich I made in reference to my speech last niglrt in favor
principles, the same objectives. This is very much unlike England of the proposition of the Majority Floor Leader. The gentleman fronr
v'lrere you have a party that stands for a conservative approach to all Rizal said that there is nothing absolutely in ti-re Constitution from
public questiorls, and a party that stands for the liberal approach. This u'hich u'e rnav ir.rller even relnotely tl-rat tl-rc said Constitution tencls to
is verl' much unlike the United States rvhere you have a party that stirnuiate the glourth of a trvo-patty systenl. am I correct?
stands fgr increasing regulation of private enterprises, and a party that
leaves business rnainly to private initiative and less state regulation.
lvIR. SALONGA. I understand that there is nothing ir-r the Con-
Here, tlrere is no such clear dichotomy. Short of a rcal attempt to spell stitution that prohibits a multi-party system.
out substantial differences in the objectives of the trvo major parties, 1,1R. PERALT'A. Birt that sras not my staternent, my statement...
it would be'better for us to be more restrained in our iudgments, more
discreet in our condemnations. I realize that more wranglings and I,IR. SALONGA. I am putting your statement in a differ:ent way.
31 sAl,()ii(;A sAl.()N(;A-t,lltt A t.'t'A l)t,]rA't'l 1S

I\{R. PERALTA I s'otrltl, request tl.rc gentlcuran to l:o[lorv thc (l.rrstituti.rr. tlrc fotrnclirrs fathers. rvould want to encourage the exis-
corlverse ptoposition. tcncc rlf ir two-l)arty svstcm?

MR. SALONGA. Yes' I u'iil go along, MR. SALONGA. No, sir, because if that were the clear implica-
tion or evcn a remote im5rlication it rvould not have put the succeed-
MR. PIIRALTA. Norv. I vould like to slrbnit to tlre iVlemlrers ing provision. ,o
of this Chamber tl.rat 14-ren the Coustitution provides that in the com-
position of the Electoral Tribr-rnrl onh, the parties having the first largest IVIR. PERALTA. i\{r. Spe,rker.
nulnbef of votes and the 1>arty having the second largest numbef of
MR. SALONGA. Why don't you give rne a chance?
votes, cloes not that, taken in conjunction u'ith the po\\rer of the Electoral
Tribunal, to deternrine the qualification of the Members of the House be I!{R. PERALTA. Excuse me, Your Honor. I apologize.
air indirect manltef of suboming the existence of the t\\'o-party system?
MR. SALONGA. I cordially accepr your apology.
MR. SALONGA. I think you are teading )'our o\\'lt r-rotions into
the provision. MR. PERALTA. Thank you verv rnuch.

MR. PEI{AL'|A. That is a 1:ersonal staternent rvhich tends to I{R. SALONGA. Now when the Constitution in Section 11 makes
ridicule my person, thit travelses into intellectuality. a reference to the patty having the largest number of votes and the
party having the second largest number of votes, I cannot find in my
MR. SALONGA. I beg your {orgiveness. It is not made to Constitution on the basis of my private notion, which is not of-
ridicule your person. fensivc to me- r cannot find there any y'ustification for the state-
MR. PERALTA. My notion of the Constitution I u'oulc{ like ment tbat there- can be only a two-party system in the philippines. It
to coffect the gentleman
-
that I have no personal notiou of the Con' is merely an encouragement for parties to get the first largest num.
-
sritution. I am interpreting the proyision. I 1'ould deign to interpret ber of votes and for another party to have the second largest number
the Constitution as auy larvycr of average intellectuality g'o11ld give of votes, and when in Section 12 it states "on the basis of proportional
representation of the parties represented therein" it is more than clear
tneaning to it.
and beyond doubr that there may be tbree or four parties, there may
MR. SALONGA. N{11' I nos' be permitted to ans\\'el )/ollr ques- be one hundred parties.
tion, if yor-r please?
MR. PERAL'IA. \Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the gentle-
tr{R. PERALT'A. I l'ill repeat the questiou for clarity. man for not finding that connection for the simple reason that he was
I shall only finish this.
not the one rvho made that statement, but I rvho made the statement
MR. SALONGA"
have the reason to be heard on the progression o{ my logic, why I
MR. PERALTA. Bnt there \\'z1s an internrption b1' I'out' side re- made the assertion that the Constitution, quoting the language of the
rnarlis that tends to becloud the question. I ask 1'our indulgence and gentleman fronr Rizal, bv implication. . .
forbearance non'. I u,'ould like to repeat the question. Does not the
gentleman renrember u'hetlrer in the concept of remoteness, because
JVIR. SALONGA. May I knorv rvhar is the question norv?
vou said that not even rerrotely, c:rn \\'e not at least say that by in- Mlt. PERALTA. I am going to satisfy the gentleman because y.rtr
ference. by remotc implication, at least if it is not immediately, the pro- made a starement tlrat there is nothing in the constitution that rvould
r"ision u'itlr regard to the Electoral Tribunal seems to implv that the remotelf imply the intention to develop a two-party system.
 s,\t,()).1(;A Si\1,()N(iA"l'l li ,\l.l \ l)l.ll \ ll 17
36

I tlrc: poirrt ol vir:l' ol' Scction I I bLrt also flom thc troint of vieu' of
MR. SALONGA. llay complete my ansu'er?
Scctiotr 1?.
MR. PERALTA. I thought it v'as already complete' Before 1'q11
MR. PljltALl'A. Mr. Speal<er...
complete it let me traverse rvhat has been laid on the record'
THE SPEAKER. a moment.
h MR. SAI,ONGA' All right, go ahead. Jr-rst {.:
MR. PERALTA. Because I am a man of slow of v'it and unless
MR. PFiIIALTA. Therefore vou rvould not allou, mv statement
on Scction 11.
ve take this piecemeal I rnight lose the chain of my thought'
MR. SALONGA. Probably, I am slou'er of rvit than the gentle- MR. SALONGA. And I took into account your starement last
night that \\/e have a presidential system of government and having the
n.ran from Sorsogon.
presidential st'stem of government lneans that what should be en-
MR. PERALTA. N{r. Speaker, I do not blame the gentleman froflr cotrraged is the two pafty system unless I have misquoted you de-
Rizal in not findilg that connection but I who nade that statement, liber:ately. There is nothing in the presidential system of government. . .
g,ould norv lay do'rvtl
'ivith the forbearance of the gentleman from Rizal,
the reason rvhy I made that statement. It is obvious, Mr. speaker, that MR. PERALTA. Fr:om the textbooks in political science that I
the Electoral Tribunal is of the essence of the membership of any of i{ my memory clid not fail me, one of the essential cha-
l-ra';e read, anci

us in the chamber. ve delegated to the Electoral Tribunal a po\Yef
and a sovereignty that resides in the body as a u'hole. Br:t the con-
stitution transferred it to the Electoral Tribunal. Thetefore the ques-
tion of meurbershi;r and the quali{ications of merlbers, while before
had to be decided bi, the Flouse as a rvfiole, is noiy zr prerogative aud
a right of the Electoral Tribr-rnal. Vhen, therefore, the Constitution,
Mr. Speaker, in contraclistinction t6-l tlre mernbersfiip in the Comrnission
on Appointments and ei'er)' other standing comrlittee of the House,
it is specifically 56^1".1 that r:rnly the tq'o largest parties q'ould be re-
presented equally in that body, 5'hic| is the ultirnate albitet of the
qualifications and membership i1 the Congress. T[at is, at least to
me, a temote insinuation that the {orrnding fathers t'anted to tlevelop
a two-party systen in this tlation.
MR. SALONG,I CX course, it is vout personal plivilege. . '
MR. PERALTA. I am called Lrpon to explain. NI1' personal pti-
vilege is founded on reasott, not on capriciousness. I have giyeu yog
racteristics of a presidential system is the existence of a trvo rvell-
balanced party sy51"nl, and I still repeat and I assert, if I u.ould have
the opportunity to research as the gentleman from Rizal researched,
I ri'ill bring that statement any time tomorrov/.
MR. SALONGA. Of course, you will have all the opportunity
to make the research. I only wish to say this that f understand a
presidential svstenr of government to be a system - of goverument where
tlre Presiclent is elected by the people instead of by the legislature.
That is the most fundamental characteristic of the presidential system
of governrnent as contradistinguished frorn a parliamentary system of
govefnment n'here the prime minister or the premier is elected by the
iegislature because he is a member of the legislature. But there is
nothing in tl.re concept and definition of the presidential system of gov-
ernment that says that you nrust only have a two-party system of gov-
eLnment.
MR. G/rNZON. Parliamentary' inquiry, N{r.
Speaker.

one folndation ancl one cleaf foundation for my right to assert that THE SPEAKER. Gentleman from lloilo.
position" f, at leirsr, e...pect the qentler-nan to cafl'v the discussiou not
oin,.d on Section 11 but on Section 12 on tlre basis of my slatemellt.
MR. GANZON. N{ay I knos' horu manv lninutes rlore has the
gentleman from Rizal?
MR. SAI-ONGA. Ida1. I inject this little thourght, that s'heu f
THE SPEAKER. The geutlernru lras seven rninutcs lrore,
criticizecl that at'gumen! I s-as criticizinq the atgument not onli'flom
38 SAI,()N(;A
IUR. GANZON. Thank you, r\1r. Speakcr.
MR. SALONGA. Thetefore may I continue rvhat I rvas going
to say? I rvas going to say before that rvelcome intertuption that a
presidential system of government is no nrore and no less tl-ran a sys-
tem nhere the President is elected by the people rather than by the
legislature and from that definition you cannot remotelf imply that
there can only be a two-party system.
llR. PERALTA. That is )'our personal opinion.
MR. SALONGA. No, I am quoting all the recognized authotities'
iltR. PERALTA. I am also quoting the authorities.
IVIR. SALONGA. And probabl)' the distinguished gentleman from
Sorsogon can now quote his ol'n definition or some definition of pte-
sidential system of government.
MR. PERALTA. I refuse to quote frrther because I know u'hat
is coming to me. Now, Your Honor, you made the sweeping statement
that the Constitution does not contain any provision which remotell'
acknorvledges its intention to encourage the existence of a two-patty
system and this Section 11 that f have submitted to your perusal was
the basis of my statement last night. I u'as careful, however, to makc
a distinction rvith regard to the Commission on Appointments where-
in the phraseology'is distinct from the phr,rseology of Section 11 in
the sensc that Section 12 refers to political parrties in pr:oportion to...
MR. SALONGA. Proportional reptesentation of the polidcal par-
ties tiretein.
IVIR. PERALTA. Proportional reprcjsentation of thc political
parties therein. So therefore it clearly denotes the existence of multiple
political aggrupations.
lvtR. SALONGA. Correct.
lVlR. PERALTA. And that also refers to every standing com-
mittee by the rules of the House.
ivIR. SALONGT\. Except the Electoral Tribunal, as Your Honor
knorvs.
\i\1.()N(iA-l'l ll ,\ I l;\ lrl.lltA't l )9
l\1|t. l'l,lin l.'l'n. Norv in rcfcr:rirrg to the case of Cabili uersus
I:ruttcisco :rn<l in citirrg tlrc staternent or speech of the President of
thc consr.ittrtionrrl (lonvcntion, I collated as the svnthesis of that speech
and thc <lccision o[ the courr, if .vou rvill forgive me to attend to the
sccond premisc, I collated frorn the speech of President Reito thar in
essencc thc frrnction resolves itself in tlre position of the ruling majority
of the cl.ranrbc. that possesses the inherent power to reorganize as it
to the existcnce of political realities in the Clramber
rvishes accorcling
at a given momeltt in the Chamber.
IVIR. SALONGA. Cotrcc.
MR. PERALTA. The most important facet, the most important
fact of political realities is the don-rinant majoritv, u'ill you agree rvith
me?
MR, SALONGA. Ancl the dominanr rnajoriry may transcend
party affiliarion.
PERALTA: In the case of Cabili as. Fraucisco, if it is once
NIR.
accepted that thc reorgar.rizationof the Flouse u'ill ultimately rest uporr
the pleasure of the dominant majority, ther-r the constitutional pro-
vision concerning proporticurrrl represe'tation can be set aside by the
dominant mtrjority and I'ho can cluestion it.
MR. SALONGA. Ve do not ask that it be set aside.
MR. PERALTA. That is the logical conclusion, if the gentleman
vill agree*'ith the President of the constitutional convention and the
phrase, tlre meani'g of the court decision in cabili us. Francisco. But
rve go to the ftindamental thesis thet after ell is said and done the re-
organization ot organization of the Membership and the proportion
in the comnrittees n'iil reflect the justice and the decision of the ruling
majority, am f correct?
MR. SALONGA. If the gendeman rvill agree, there are t\r,o as-
pects in the case of Cabili us. Francisco.
MR. PERALTA. Ler us not go to the case of Cabili us. Fran-
cisco. Let us take the case of Recto.
MR. SALONGA. Mr. Speaker, I refuse to be confused. There
are two aspectsin the case o[ Cabili us. Francisco.
40 SA J I IN(;A r, \l i)N(;A-l'l.lli\1,'l'A l)l.l,A'l'l 4T

NIR. PFIRi\L'|A. I grant the plivilege to Yor.tt' IIorrot'. l]ut tlrc
trouble hcre is we are tlying to be confuscd.
MR. SALONGA. No. Insofirr as this receiving erlcl is concel:necl.
I refuse to be confused. 'Ihere are two aspects in the case of Cabili
us. Francisco. The first aspect of that case is on the power to re-
organize and the resulting reorganizaiion. That. accor'ding to tire
Supreme Court, is an entirely political question and bevor-rd the cotlr-
petence of the Supreme Court. The second aspect is the rneaning of
the provision, of that pl-rrase found in Section 12 regarding proportionai
representaiion of the political alignment in the Senate. One justice
abstained, ald the eight rvere divided, four had one vierv and tfie other
four lreld a contfary view. \Y/hen rve talk tirerefore about the Cabili
os. Ft7.t',cisco case, we call not cliscr"rss it in srveeping s6okes. We have
to distinguish bet*'een the trr,'o aspects of the case.
MR. PERALTA. I would to proceeding b.v cle-
agree rvith you
grees. Let us go on the first portion of the court decision in the case
af. Cabili us. Francisco. The Supreme Court stated that it would not
interfere with the right of any Chamber of Colgress to effect its re-
organization, am I correct?
MR. SALONGA' Corect.
IUR, PERALTA. If once the principle is settled, rvould you
agree rvith me, Your Honof, that the second proposition is practically
useless?
MR. SAI-,OI{GA. Yes, tlre second proposition mav in some
'l'l ll1 SPIlAlilili. 'l'lrrrt is corfect.
MR. I'}JlltAT,llA. Mr'. Speaker, I move for an extension of
thc tirnc of the gcntleman for another hour.
I'IIE SPEAKER. Is there any objection? (After a pause.) The
Chrrir does not hear any. The rnotion is approved.
L{R. PERAL'IA. My ciuestion, Your Honor, is this. After the
SLrixenre Court has considered in that decision that in vieu, of the
separation of pou'ers, the ptinciple of separation of porvers, it can not
cliscard tlre reorganizatiotr effected in the Senate. Is that not enough
ar-rtl.rority for the Senate to also reorganize the composition of tl-re Com-
mission on Appointments even to the extent of distegarding particular
constitutional restraints in the Constitution?
N,IR. SALONGh. I do not l<norv u'hat the Supreme Cour:t will
say on the second point, I hope Your Honor v'ill give me time to finish
rlry nns\ver. Norv, lve knorv that there is a principle in Constitutional
La*', rncl not onllr a principle in Constitutional lau. but in all branches
of tire li11v, that the decision of the Supreme Court in one particular
case is good only for the facts, for the particular facts'involved in that
case. Norv you talk about a ne\v set of certain circumstances. I rvould
refuse to concecle that the Cabili us. Francisco case rvill be decisive on
this nev sct of circlrmstances precisely because of the case of Aaelino
as. Cuenco. In ten days time the Supreme Court changed its own
mind on the ver1, same facts. \7hat is there to prevent the Supreme
Court frorn changing its mind x'hen a different set o{ facts is presented?
as-

pects be apparently useless, but the Supreme Court did not say so' MIt. PERALTA. I am glad, Your Honor, you admit the pro-
position that it is unreliable to depend LU)on any particular decision
MR. PERALTA. lf the second proposition is practically useiess of the Snpreme Court as constitllting slare decisis on any contingent
it is really not indicatiye as necessary for the ratio decidendi of t|e set of circumstzurces of the llouse.
(Jon.qress to 1e-
case because once the court cousiders the power of
otganize as it pleases, the Coitrt can llot intervene in vierv of the Sr\LONGA. No, you misinterpret me. I did not say that
lv{R.
s.f"rotio^ of poru.rr. $ilhat can inhibit the court to declale as illegai it is trnr:eliable. It is reliable on the same and similar set of facts and
u ,,lb.".1.,.nt reorgatrization of the Commission on Appointment reflect- circumstances, but on different sets of facts and circumstances, it is
ing the {ecision, the jtrstices of tl.re poq'er of the maiorit-v to reorganize. not colrtrolljng.
MR. SALONGA. May I knorv the questioll of tbe gentlenan? I,lR. PERALTA. I rvill test the veracity of your assertion. You
ale sirilting 1'our positiot-rs.
MR. GANZON. iUr. S1:eaker, t1.re tinre of the genrleman ftonr
Rizal has expited, \,I]i. Sz\I,ONGA. No.
J.) SA
lvil{. itL,BEttT. Point of Ordet, tr{r. Spcrrl<cr. ll'hc trvo gcutle-
men are engaging in such a beautiful and intelligcnt tliscussior-r and I
do not urant the Chair to limit thcir intellectual discussion.
TI-III SPEAKER. The gentlemen is perfectly in order.
MR. PERALTA. N'Ir. Speaker, I rvould like to be permitted by
the gentleman from Riz:rl to extend my question a little bit farther' I
rvould ask his forbearance to allol. me to state the question more
lengdril;' because I rvill la1, do11,r'r the premise. Mr. Speaker, I lind
an inconsistency in the proposition ac{vanced by the gentleman from
Rizal on one side, by cluoting the President of the Constitutional Con-
ventioll u'hen he laid dorvn the thesis tl-rat in the ultimate analysis it
is the ruling majorit-v of the Chamber of Congress that determines the
reorganization of that Chamber. Orl the other hand, by citing Section
12 of the Constitution, he sets a limit to the po\ver of that majority.
By raising the proportional tepresentation clause, therefore, he has
adoptcd t.r,'o inconsistent positions.
MR. SALONGA. I see no inconsistency, Mr. Speaker.
IVIR. PERALTA. I u'ant to be correct in my irnpression so that
we can join debate. On one sicle he salzs 1l't^, it is the nrling majority
in the Chamber that ultirnatell' determines the organization or
reorgarr'zationof thc l{otrsc. Upon the other hand, hc says that by
readir-rgthe plovision of the Constitution the ruling majority is duty
bound to attend to the pr:escription of tl-re limitation of the particular
Constitutional provision. In short. rvhile in one proposition he main-
tains that it depends on the majority, upon the other hand, he says
tha.t thc majority must perforcc respect the Constitutional provision,
ivhich is which?
MR. SALONGA. 'Ihere is no inconsistency, N{r. Speaker.
MR. PERALTA. I am givine thc gentlcrnan no\v a chance to
clarify.
.l\,IR. SALONGA. 'I-here is no inconsistsll6l', NIr. Spealier, i:e-
cause the great postulates <lf tbe Constitution are basedon the assLlmp-
tion that the majority l'ill reverc the Constittrtion u'hen it says that
the majolity has the po\ver. We do not argue in favor of excesses in
the esercise of pou'et. We onlv argue in frn'or of the c.scrcise of that
po\\rer l'ithin tl.re proper bounds.
I,()N(iA sAl.()N(;A-t'titrAt,'l'A t)tilrA't'tt 43
Mlt- PllltAI-'l'4. I clisscnt from rlrat, Your l{onor, because even
thc Corrstitr.rtiou so pu'ides that the ruling majority elected by the
1rcoplc can ahvays bc cxpccted to do the right thing by the people.
'I'lrcrc would be no need of constitutional limitations. Precisely, the
(lonstitutional limitations are placed there because tlre founding fathers
havc no confidence in the sense of justice, they did not $'ant to take the
gamble that all thcse should rest on one person who u'ill have a sense
of judgrnent and reason as the Members of the ruling majority. Con-
stitutional limitations have no meaning at all. It is on the assumption
that those in possession of power can transgress that power and abuse
it, otherrvise, rvhat is the need for the prescription of limitations or
rcstraints, if I u'ill agree to your statement that the Constitution rea-
lizes that the ruling majority rvill abide by the prescription.
MR. SALONGA. \,ir. Speaker, I beg to disagree rvith the learned
observation of the gentleman from Sorsogon. All our larvs and the
lan's of the civilized *'orld are based on the assumption that power
shall be regularly exercised. In fact it is one of the presumptions in
the lav' of evidence and it is one of the presumptions in the Civil
Code that power shall be regularly exercised. There is nothing in our
larvs that Dresumes in favor of bad faith. The law always presumes in
favor of good faith, in favor of regularity in the exercise of porver.
MR. PERALTA. That presumption cannot go beyond the stage
of presumptions juris tdtxtunx or presllmption iuris et de iure.
MR. SAI-ONGA. You have the burden of proof to show that the
exercise o[ power was beyond bounds but certainly you must presume
regularity in the exercise of por.r'er.
MR. PERALTA. The Liberal Party here norv has the burden of
proof to prove that the ruling majoritv is not acting in accordance with
the Constitution.
TIIE SI'EAKER: Just a moment please. The Chair rvouid like
to renrind the gentlemen debating that interpellations are made through
questions ancl anstt'ers.
PERALTA. 'Ihank -r'ou, Mr. Speaker, but this cannot be
N'IR.
taken in the form of a classroorn questio,n-and-ans$,er method. This

44 S A L(
involves ir fuudametrtal substantivc principlc lvhcrc cvcrv cltrcstion tnttst
be given a background and every answer must bc cxtenclcd for the bene'
fit of cvervone n ho \\'auts to approach the subject rvith the intcllcct
of the learned gentleman from Rizal.
N{Ir. SAI,ONGA. Such t'ords imply a becoming seuse of modesty,
indecd.
NIR. PERALTA. Nou', Your Honor, if rvill perrnit me to pro-
1,su
ceed. So, ri,hich is nou. the tt:uc foundation of the position of the
gentlemeln {rom liizal? Vould he rely on the logical extfemes of the
strtement of the Presicler.rt of the Constitutional Convention or rvould
he rely or thc substance of the court decision in the case of Cabili
xs. Fratici-rco?
MR. SALONGT\. I do not see any inconsistency, I do not see
anv sense of conttadiction ber-l'een the tn'o propositions. It is true
that tl-re court has erlurays stated that the ruling rnajority decides the
power, decides the exercise of porver such as this, decides the com-
position of the House in the matter of committees, the reorganization
of the I{ouse in tl-,e miltter of committees, but the great postulates of
the Constituiion nlu,a:is ptedicate tl-ris pos'er of the lnajoritl' to ruie
on reverence for tlre Constitution. The cottrt does not presume bad
faitb on the part of atrlt litigrrnt; it ahval's presLrmes in fartor of good
faith. And rvhen this porvet is reposed in the maioritv, it is based
on the assumption that this ruling maiority l,ill pay leverence, rviil
pn)' chre legard to the (ilrstitution.
A,Ilt. PFIRALI'A. '['he letter of tlre Constittrtiot"t cloes not presume
bacl faith.
lvlR. SALONGA, Correct.
Nllt. PIJRALI'A. BLrt thc lettcr of the Constittrtion has providctl
alu,airs !ot: guirlatrtees agiril'lst l'esort to bad faith.
tvtll . SALONGA. Excesscs rlre 11ot 1-'tresttnred. E:icesses have
be provcd, ancl that is the time for: tl.re coutts to iutervene.
Mlt. PtiltALTA. Let let r-ri not presume that the
us not presulrle,
fornrrrlrr ,xloptec{ nnd proposed bv the Majority' is uot in conformity
u'ith thc (lorrstitutiorr If the Liberals spoke of alleged excesses let
rhcrn t-rlovc it hccarrsc the presntrption of gooc{ faith, the presumption
sAl.()N(,4 I'l l{,\l'l /\ l)l ll,\'l l 45
)l,v(;A
.,l lrolrtl'. l)r'(:sunll)ti()rr,tl'ltttncrll u'ill bc lrclhcrctl to bv tlre curfent
rn:riotilv irr tiris I lorrst'.
Mli. SALONGA. Thrrt is thc rezrson rvl-ry I delivered this appeal
bclic,,,irrq thrtt tl're rtrling rna.ioritl'r1,ill not indulge in excesses because
if it rlocs it l.rrrs to contend s'ith tl-re rninotity rvhen the lvlinority be-
c(nlrcs thc i\'Tajolitv ancl uses tl.re same excesses against the nelv Minority.
MR. PIIRALTA. If as a consecluerlce of our fulfilling out res-
ponsil'rilities llow \ve subject ourselves to prejudgment and misjudgment
which perhaps couid be affected by rr sub-conscious partisanship, but
if your forebedings were ever to be a reality, I assure Your Honor that
u,-e, the members of the Nacionalista Part5,, ltho have seen good and
better: times, rvl-ro have seen evil days under the Liberal Partl', u'ho
l-rave suffered before, are disposed to suffer again.
Lef us take this problern of pot'er or of principle. I t'ill norv
proceed on specifics aud not on getreral questiol'ls. For example, a
ruling maiority in this chamber decides on the reptesentation in the
Commission on Appointment not in exact conrpliance t'ith the pro'
visions of Sec. 12 of the Constitutiorr, q'ould that fit into the con-
tempol:aly statemeflt of President Recto u'hich I'or-r said rvas a declata-
tion ante litenz rnotaru?
A,IR. SALONGA. Your questioll says cxact compliancc. I would
moc{ifv it. if it is a substantial cotnpliance, ;1 11rill be all right because
tlre Constitution deals vith substance, not ri'ith shadotts.
PEI{ALTA. Suppose the basis of the reprcselltatiorl \tr/as not
NIR.
based on F:arties fitstly, and again not on the cot:rect mathematical pro-
portion as olclained by the Constitution but it rvas so decided by the
ruling majority in this Chamber, u'ould that situation fit into the gen-
eral idea of that statement of President Recto?
MR. SALONGA. If it is a substantial compliance. yes' and if it
tc, rvill help to discharge the function entrtlsted to the Conrmission on
Appointrnents, namell,, the fiscalizing of the appointlr-rents made by the
President on the basis of proportional lepresentation actuallv reflective
of the political alignment jn the Llouse.
N4R. PERALTA. It did not say so. The Constitution cloes not
imply rrctr.ralh' r'eflective of the state of po\vel's in tl.re House. br-rt it is
46 sAL()N(;A
the statcrnent of the gentleman from Rizal. it is his o*'n itrtct'ptctiltioll.
I rvould limit it to the very language of the Coustirution.
MR. SALONGA. The language of the Constitution szrl's "pr<t-
portional representatiol of the political pafties represelted therein."
But it does not say, as the Ivlajority Floor Lcader u,ould have us bc-
Iieve, that it should rcflect the representation of the political parties
at the tirne of the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
MR. PERALTA. I rvould not resporld entirely along the assertion
of the lvlajority Leader.
lvtR. SALONGA. Would Yor-rr Honot...
NIR. PERALTA. Wait a minute. Before answeting. let me com-
plete my proposition. Sr.rppose that in the correct proposal o[ the
Nacionalista majoritv we attend only to existing formal parties instead
of alliance or affiliations. g'ould that not be a substantial compliance?
MR. SALONGA. It s'ill not be a substantial compliance.
MR. PERALTA. In what way?
MR. SALONGA. Because under your own definition given on
the floor last night, a party is an organized group of people having
the same belief, pursuing the same political end, and on the basis
of that definition this alliance is a party.
MR. PERALTA. It is not a party, it is an alliance. They were
only agreed on the Speakership contest.
MR. SALONGA. No, thel' have a manifesto, a common belief
and comnron intentions.
MR. PERALTA. If that is a nerv aggrupation, then it is indepen-
clent.
I,IR. SALONGA" Have ;-ou seen the manifesto published in the
papers?
NIR. PERALT'A. I don't think I have.
MR. SALONGA. Then n'e callnot pursue our discr-rssion on
basis of 1'our failure to read the rnanifesto.
SAl,()N(;A-l'lil{Al.'l'.\ lrlilli\'l'l 47
Nlli. l'}l:ltt\1.'l'A. Wc nrust l.r,rvc a fot'mal basis bccause rvhen I
c,rntliclly rrrlnrittccl thrrt J clo not l<norv the basis, it is the duty of the
llcr)tlcnr:lrr fxrm llizal to enlightcn us on the factual basis so that rve
lnilv pt()ccc(l rvith the discussior-r. Vould you invite me to make ,r
fraucltrlcr.rt clainr of knon,ledge?
\'IR. Sz\LONGA. I do not.
PEIIALTA. Is it uumanly to tell you that I have not
N'lR. rea(l
rhc manifesto? C)r v'ill )'ou talie undue advantage. . .
i\IR. SALONGA. I s'ill not take trndue advantage of vour failure
to rea<l it. What I aur saying is that you cannot say it is not a parql
unless vou have first read the manifesto.
MR. PERALTA. I am inviting Yout Ilonor to give me the gist
of the manifesto.
MR. SALONGA. But you lrave made a srveeping assertion that
it is not a party and all I am rvilling to say is that unless you have
read the manifesto ,vou cannot jr.rmp to such a sveepilrg conclusion.
MR. PEIfAL'1'A. Based on our linorvleclge, rvithout the mani-
festo, I rvould say that is not a party. If you can give me the gist
of the nranifesto ancl u'e crrn dovetail it rvith the teal definition of a
political partl', f might recede in nly position. Our c{iscussion on thc
floor becomcs competition unless your interpellation is a display of
competitive intellect.
MR. SALONGA. It is not.
IUR. PERALTA. You have no reason to derry me the enlight-
enment of the f,rcts, otheru'ise, there rvill be no meaning to our dis-
cussion. If l'e appt'oar.clr it on the basis of competitivc discussion, we
cnlightcn the N,Iember:s of Con.qress.
lvIR. SALONGA. lViay I 6e1v put in my two-cents $,orth?
MR. PERALTA. Even ten-cents ot twentv-cents worth. The
nlore volr l.ravc the better.
I'lR. SALONGA. If tlrat is the approach of the gentleman, name-
tl)e
Iy, on thc h,rsis of colrpetiiion. I am sotrv to say I do not slrare that
kind of atrr1'rroach. llhe only irrstification fot free speecl.r nnd for {ree
48 Si\ I (,N(iA s.\ [.0N(;A-t'l]RAt.1 A l)lil]i\'t'l
'19

debate is that both of us are interested in the asceltainment
truth.
MR, PERAI-TA. Thank you. I hope \r'e proceed on that
sumption.
MR. SALONGA. I mean to say that as a matter of tuth, as a
matter of fact there is such a manifesto. And the pervading notion is
that u.e sl-rall try to ascertain the rr,rth in this debate.
MR. PERAI.TA. Mr. Speaket, as an incident of the discussion
tr r,voulcl :rsk the melubers of the Milority to produce this Manifesto
for the cotnmon consideration of the N{embers of this Charnber so thrri
we can vcntilate if it u'as really bom as a political independent ag-
grLrpation entitled to its lights under the Conltitution to proportional
representation. But surely', Mt. Speaker, f refuse to interpret that
Manifesto onll' as the gentleman frotn Rizal rvould tell us it is
so. \0e n'ant to be entitierl to lead because ei,en if u.e have read
befote rve nright lrave forgotten it if u,'e did uot have interest for pur-
poses of frrture records. \Ve did not knov that Manifesto n'ould come
up to the fore so that we could have kept it in our possession and
read it ancl carried it in our tninds.
of thc N{R. PEfu\LTA. I refuse to answer that question. That question
is a trap ancl the gentleman is engaging in logistical mischief.
as- NIR. SALONGA. On the basis of your own definition, are you
rvilling to agree ro. . .
MI{. PERALTA. That is a logistical mischief. Mr. Speaker. I rvill
clarify mi self. I had already said that I have nor read that Manifesto.
That is a candicl admission of the imperfectness of my factual position.
So I seel< ]roll1' tolerance, but we are discussing here not to prove
that one js rnore infolmed than the other. We are discussing here for
the Chanber.
MR. SALONGA. To ascertain the uuth,
I\IR. PERALTA. I am calling therefore upon Your Ifonor to
exercise candor to yolrr peers ancl inform them rvhether in fact or in
eftect the so-called A1lied Majotitf is a distinct political party rvhich
rvill fit into the definition of the Constitution for political party.
UIR. SALONGA. Your Honor is deviating from our debate. It
is not u,hether it fits into the definition of political party as found in
the Constitr:tion.

MR. SALONGA. It s'as published in all the papers and ne can MR. PERALTA. Because u'hile I use political party, the gentle-
ptoduce that trolr'. firan uses political afliliation and political alignment, u'hich is reflective
of the cLrrrent political power in this Chamber.
[4R. PERALTA. For the ptlrposes of this discussion, let us get
it from the lips of the gentleman from Rizal, from his ou'n houest MR. SALONGA. If you n'ill grant n.re time to ans\ver...
recollection and upon his oath. X,IR. AI,BERT. NIr. Speaket.

\4R. SALONGA. The dlstinguished lvlinority Leacler: has assured TIIE SPEAKER. !flhat is tl-re pleasure of the gentleman from
us that he r"'ill give us a copi/. lVIanila ?

MR. PERALTA. So as to {incl oLrt whether in effect this so-called I\,{R. AI,BERT. I am insisting on my previous point of order, Mr.
Allied Maioritf is in fact and in truth a nerv independent political ag- Spcakcr'.
grupation from either the NP or the LP. 'IIIE SPEAKER. The point of ordet of the gentleman from NIa-
nila is rvell taken.
\,IR. SALONGi\. And that Manifcsto contains statements apart
from the fight for the Speakership. Is the gentlernan rr,'illiug to agree, j\{R, PIIRALTA. lvlr. Speat<er, upon the suggestion of the Majotity
assr.rming that he represents the ruling majoritl', that if that Nlanifesto Leadcr J rvould rathcr that I speak on ln.v- own time in ordel to ans$ter
contair-:s matters tr"F great interest to the Nation, entirelv apart from the iearrred observotir>ns oI the lelrne<l gentleman from Rizal. I rvould
the electiorr of the Speaker, the Allied lMajoritv shor:ld 1-.c corrsirlered pa-rt irom tlre ptoposition that the thesis adduced by the gentleman
a Partr', on tlre basis o{ his outn dcfinitionT fronr R.izal is thrt political nffiliarion or political cor-nbination re{lec-
50 sAI-()N(;A
tive c.rt shifting of politicrI p:rrtics or cl.rat.rging in pttlitic,rl pott'cr ol
the House .substantirrll)' complies rvith the constitutioltal tncat.ring. I
rvill stand on the proposition that rvhen the Constitution speaks ol
political parties, it is the usual meaning, the acceptecl neaning ol
political party as a collectivitrv of persons having the same political idcnls
and pursuing the strme proglam of government. I will prove that, l"Tr'.
Speaker.
IUR. SALONGA. I beg to differ from the gentleman from Sor-
sogon. There is a slight deviation ftom tl-re issue in this debate. The
issue in this debate is based on his orvn definition of a political partv,
not tlre definition found in the Constitution, because there is no sucl-r
definition in thc Coi.rstitution. The issue is rvhether on the basis of his
os'n definition given hcle on the floor of Congress, this nex' independ-
cnt political aggrupation fits into the concept of a political pamy as
pronounced by him, and I say that on the basis of l-ris own definition of
ternrs, namelr'. that a political party is a group of pcople shadng the
same political encls, prrrsuing the same common political designs, I con-
tend that, on the basis of his owr-r definition not thc definition of
the Constitntion, because it is norvlrere to be- found the so-called
- vish to call
Allied Majority or Allied Minoritv, call it what you mrry
it, fits into his ovn concept; but he tries to deviate rrnd attempts to
measure this group according to the so-called definition of the Constitu-
tion. Norvhere in the entire Constitution is there such a clefinition.
Thank votr, NIr. Speaker.
IVIR. ORTEGA. Mt. Speaker. f move that we continue the debate
on tl-ris matter next Monclay afternoon at 5 o'clock.
I,IR. VILLAREAL. I agree to the motion, N4r. Speaker'.
'l'I-lE SPEAF:ER. Is there any objection? (After a pause.) Thc
ChaiL' cloes not hear anv. Tlre motion is approved.
AD.IOURNMENT OF SESSION
Mlt. ORTEGA. ;Vr'. Speaker, f move that rve adjourn until to-
morro\\'at l0 o'clocl< in the morning.
TI{E SPEAKER. fs there rrny objection? (After a pause.) The
Chair does not hear anr'. The session is adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 o'clock in the urornilrg.
II u:a.r 8:01 p.m.
JOSE P. LAUREL, Sr.
In thc pain of loss that the nation felt rvhen the morning papers
bore thc shocking neu's of Jose P. Laurel's death, only a few remeru-
bered hirl as a classroom teacher. He u'as so much a patriot, a nation-
alist, ancl a statesman his enduring achievements in the more ex-
-
posed ficlds of nation-building obscured his merits as a patient teacher
of a gcrrcration of larvyers.
Even lrere at Far Eastern University, only a handful of students
know tl.rat he rvas for a number of years a professor of constitutional
law. Many of his contemporaries in the Institute of Law are gone,
and only a ferv can sdll remember. But no matter. The present crop
of students have not had the chance to hear his voice in the classroonr,
but thel' cannot miss the figure of a man that emerges clear and true
in his monumental decisions. For his judicial opinions are so ably and
lucidly u'ritten; they mirror faithfully the character of the man drar
penned them.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has a rich historv chiefly
because of the men that graced its halls. Jose P. Laurel was one such
rran
-
"great and good," as the brilliant and rvitty Claro M. Recto de-
scribes him in the earnest attempt to captute the u'hole range of his
virtues u,ith the clurnsy language of humanity.
Appointed to the Supreme Court on February 29, 19)6, just
a year after the Constitutional Convention of rvhich he was a -shining
light approved the proposed Constitution for submission to the people-
Jose P. Laurel embarked Lrpon a u'ork of supreme love and scholamhip.
Indeed there is so much of both in his opinions in the {ield of political
law. The facts are there for us to consider: corlstitutional lar.r rvas
his meat, it u'as the subject he had been teaching, and the Constitution
he rvas called upon to expound \r'as, in some real sense, 'his' Constitu-
tion. For he had an important hand in its drafting, along rvith Claro
M. Recto his opponent u'ho bested him a ferv .vears back in
-
a bitter ;rc'1.itical contest, later elected President of the Qelysnlien
-
5l