Congressional Record

PLENARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15th CONGRESS, FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Vol. 4 CALL TO ORDER At 4:00 p.m., Deputy Speaker Lorenzo R. Taada III called the session to order. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is now called to order. NATIONAL ANTHEM THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Please rise for the singing of the Philippine National Anthem. Everybody rose to sing the Philippine National Anthem. PRAYER THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada) Please remain standing for a minute of silent prayer. Everybody remained standing for the silent prayer. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the session be suspended for a few minutes. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is suspended. It was 4:02 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 4:49 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is resumed. The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we defer the roll call. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Floor Leader is recognized. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General will please read the Reference of Business. REFERENCE OF BUSINESS The Secretary General read the following House Bill on First Reading, Communications and Committee Reports, and the Deputy Speaker made the corresponding references: BILL ON FIRST READING House Bill No. 4566, entitled: AN ACT PROHIBITING ALL RETIRED AND ACTIVE MILITARY AND POLICE PERSONNEL, INCLUDING OFFICERS, FROM BEING APPOINTED IN A CONCURRENT OR ANY OTHER CAPACITY TO THE POSITIONS OF SECRETARY, UNDERSECRETARY, HEAD OR MEMBER OF GOVERNING BODIES OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND AGENCIES AND OTHER EQUIVALENT POSITIONS By Representatives Ilagan and De Jesus TO THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Tuesday, May 10, 2011 No. 67 REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we defer the approval of the Journal. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. ANTONINO. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the pleasure of the Gentleman from REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, the Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.

2 ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS Rep. Anthony Rolando T. Golez Jr. for House Bills No. 46, 511, 632, 2923, 3259 and 3265; Rep. Hermilando I. Mandanas for House Bills No. 162, 807 and 3112; Rep. Karlo Alexei B. Nograles for House Bills No. 322, 1705 and 3472; Rep. Pedro P. Romualdo for House Bills No. 524, 825 and 1888; Rep. Bernadette R. Herrera-Dy for House Bills No. 800, 3975 and 4244; Reps. Anna York P. Bondoc and Roy M. Loyola for House Bill No. 807; Rep. Teodorico T. Haresco Jr. for House Bills No. 807 and 3527; Rep. Maria Isabelle Beng G. Climaco for House Bill No. 1485; Rep. Jocelyn S. Limkaichong for House Bill No. 2198; Rep. Ma. Amelita A. Calimbas-Villarosa for House Bills No. 3088 and 4330; Rep. Kaka J. Bag-ao for House Bill No. 3485; Reps. Emi Calixto-Rubiano, Rolando G. Andaya Jr. and Victor F. Ortega for House Bill No. 3527; Rep. Angelo B. Palmones for House Bills No. 3946 and 3947; Rep. Kimi S. Cojuangco for House Bill No. 3962; Rep. Jesus Boying F. Celeste for House Bills No. 3968, 3969, 4214 and 4215; Rep. Salvador H. Escudero III for House Bill No. 3977; Rep. Imelda R. Marcos for House Bill No. 4260; Rep. Linabelle Ruth R. Villarica for House Bill No. 1384 and House Resolution No. 576; Rep. Victor J. Yu for House Bills No. 4100 and 4301, and House Resolution No. 861; Rep. Nur-Ana I. Sahidulla for House Bills No. 4100 and 4301, and House Resolutions No. 957 and 1031; Rep. Josephine Veronique R. Lacson-Noel for House Bills No. 4100 and 4301, and House Resolution No. 1031; Rep. Mark Llandro L. Mendoza for House Bill No. 3527 and House Resolution No. 861; Rep. Eduardo R. Gullas for House Resolution No. 672; Reps. Joel Roy R. Duavit and Ma. Victoria R. Sy-Alvarado for House Resolution No. 861; and Rep. Deogracias B. Ramos Jr. for House Resolution No. 1031. COMMUNICATIONS Letter dated April 15, 2011 of Mr. Orlando B. Vea, President, Primeworld Digital Systems, Inc., submitting to the House of Representatives the 2010 Annual Report and 2010 Audited Financial Statement in compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9130. TO THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISES Letter dated April 19, 2011 of Marianito M. Dimaandal, Director IV, Malacaang Records Office, transmitting a certified copy of Memorandum Order No. 13 dated April 18, 2011. TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE Letter dated April 29, 2011 of Atty. Enrico L. Espaol, Legal

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 Counsel, Smart Broadband Inc., submitting to the House of Representatives the following: 1) 2010 Annual Report of Smart Broadband, Inc.; 2) 2010 Annual Report of Smart Communications, Inc.; and 3) 2010 Annual Report of the Connectivity Unlimited Resources Enterprise, Inc. TO THE COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISES Letter dated May 3, 2011 of Marianito M. Dimaandal, Director IV, Malacaang Records Office, furnishing the House of Representatives with a certified true copy of Executive Order No. 40 dated April 29, 2011. TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTS Report by the Committee on Transportation (Committee Report No. 900), re H. No. 4571, entitled: AN ACT REGULATING THE USE OF HAND-HELD MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICES WHILE DRIVING AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill Nos. 318, 788, 986, 1277, 1586, 2136, 3302 and 3445 Sponsors: Representatives Mercado (R.), Yap (S.), Gonzales (A.) and Acop TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES Report by the Committee on Local Government (Committee Report No. 901), re H. No. 4573, entitled: AN ACT REVERTING THE NAME OF THE PROVINCE OF COTABATO TO ITS ORIGINAL NAME, NORTH COTABATO, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 660 recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill No. 3456 Sponsors: Representatives Arnaiz, Catamco, Sacdalan, Palmones and Mendoza (R.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES Report by the Committee on Revision of Laws (Committee Report No. 902), re H. No. 4574, entitled: AN ACT RATIONALIZING THE PENALTIES FOR THE THEFT OF COCONUTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 310 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill No. 800 Sponsors: Representatives Primicias-Agabas and Cagas TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES Report by the Committee on Trade and Industry (Committee Report No. 903), re H. No. 4575, entitled: AN ACT ENCOURAGING CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROVIDING INCENTIVES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill No. 1224 Sponsors: Representatives Garcia (A.), Macapagal Arroyo (D.) and Macapagal-Arroyo (G.) TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker. REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Cebu? REP. GARCIA (P.). I rise on a question of personal and collective privilege. SUSPENSION OF SESSION THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is suspended. It was 4:52 p.m. RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 4:53 p.m., the session was resumed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is resumed. The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I request that we acknowledge the presence of some guests. We have the guests of Hon. Loreto Leo S. Ocampos, namely: the doctoral students from the Misamis University, Ozamiz City, led by their Professor, Dr. Virgilio H. Onganiza. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Please rise. Welcome to the House of Representatives. (Applause) The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I request that we acknowledge the presence of the guests from the National Economic Development AuthorityRegion VI, headed by Ms. Roann Bacal, Regional Director; and Atty. Raul S. Anlocotan, OIC-Assistant Regional Director. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Please rise. Welcome to the House of Representatives. The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I request that we acknowledge the presence of the guests of Hon. Neri J. Colmenares of the Bayan Muna Party-List, and Hon. Teddy A. Casio, namely: the leaders of the homeowners association and residents of Pangarap Village of Caloocan City. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Please rise. Welcome to the House of Representatives. (Applause) The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we recognize Hon. Rodolfo W. Antonino from the Fourth District of Nueva Ecija on a matter of personal and collective privilege.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the nature of the speech of the Gentleman from Nueva Ecija? REP. ANTONINO. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, my question of personal and collective privilege has to do with renewable energy, on which I rise as a Member of this House and as a constituent of this country. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Gentleman has 10 minutes. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. ANTONINO REP. ANTONINO. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I stand here on a matter of a very important issue that concerns the entire country. Recently, we have witnessed the dangerous effects caused by the nuclear power plants in Japan. We saw how grave the situation has been over there, and we extended our deepest sympathies to the families affected. Why do I say this, Mr. Speaker? I say this because, as we all know, the countries around the world are on a desperate catch-up in finding solutions to deal with the global effects of climate change. Our country is not isolated. We are affected as much as any country. So, in response to this global phenomenon, in 2008, the Renewable Energy Act was signed into law. The law addresses the governments policy of looking for other sources of energya policy that is supposed to advance our position in the Asia Pacific Region and in adopting renewable energy sources. In the case of Japan, as well as other First World countries, they have nuclear power. They adopted the technology not only to provide for their increasing energy requirements but also to embrace efficient, cost-effective and supposedly earthfriendly sources of energy. Our country may have lost its chance with the Bataan National Nuclear Power Plant. At any rate, the adoption of nuclear energy is put in great doubt in the light of the Japan incident. What we have is the Renewable Energy Act, which paved the way to the exploration, development and utilization of renewable energy resources in the country. It mandated that electricity suppliers source a minimum percentage of their energy supply from any of the following: geothermal, wind, solar, hydro or biomass. Basically, Mr. Speaker, the national policy is to make the country energy independent. Republic Act No. 9513, otherwise known as the Renewable Energy Act of 2008, was touted in the media both locally and internationally as the first and most comprehensive in Asia. We are beset by increasing fuel prices in the world. We are increasingly paying for high electricity bills. We are highly dependent on fossil fuels. In addition to this, and as a consequence, we are also beset by abnormal weather conditions brought about by climate change. I am disappointed to see that the prevailing policy appears to be continuing the habit of paying more money for the rising cost of imported coal and fuel. The increase in the cost of power is inevitable primarily due to the instability in the Middle East and, eventually, the short supply of fossil fuels. Should we perpetually pay for this instability or should we

4 invest our money wiselylike building hydropower plants, wind farms and other renewable energy sourcesin order to have more stable and diversified clean energy supply? Here we are in 2011. What is the present state of our policy on renewable energy? Where are we now? What are the obstacles? My colleagues, these questions can be answered by the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Board and the Energy Regulatory Commission. The National Renewable Energy Board was created under the Renewable Energy Act. Its role is to oversee its implementation, and part of it is to determine the tariff for different renewable energy projectsmay it be solar, wind, hydro or biomass. Once it has completed its computations, it should submit its recommendations to the Energy Regulatory Commission for approval. The tariff scheme is one of the incentives under the Renewable Energy Law. It is the incentive for the developers of the technology to invest in our country. It is called the feed-in tariffs or FITs, for short. The FITs are the guaranteed prices at which renewable energy developers will be paid for the energy that they will produce and inject into the transmission or distribution system. Under this system, they are assured of operational viability which goes without saying that it serves to finally allow the RE Act to be implemented and to benefit the country as intended. It appears, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the success of the Renewable Energy Act is also dependent on what incentive our laws allow the developers to gain. Indeed, we consider the dilemma faced by the NREB a dilemma, on one side, to see to it that the consuming public will not have to again bear the burden of high electricity bills and, on the other hand, to encourage developers of this technology by simply allowing them to recoup the cost of investment and for an allowed regulated return on investment. However, we have read in the newspapers recently that investors or developers are clamoring due to the unfair, unjustified and unclear pegging of a proposed FIT rate by the NREB which will be submitted to the ERC on May 16, 2011. The last FIT rate adopted by the NREB is P7 per kilowatt hour for biomass. Compare this, Mr. Speaker, to the justapproved power plant in Panay where the ERC-rate approved with fuel pass-through was P10 per kilowatt hour. That is for coal, Mr. Speaker, and the coal power plants have a passthrough provision. In the case of biomass, this is fixed for 20 years, apart from increases due to the consumer price index a rate at which the investors do not see any reason at all to develop this technology in the country simply because it is no longer economically logical to do so. The developers, an important stakeholder as they are, have been in regular meetings with the NREB to come up with a proposed FIT that is recent, accurate, fair and socially acceptable for all concerned. The proposed FIT rate was not acceptable to the NREB. They adopted hook, line and sinker an espoused FIT rate which does not ultimately allow investment in this industry. The lingering question, therefore, is why? Mr. Speaker, this Representation is not for anyone here but purely for the reason that I am an advocate of green energy. If there is anyone who stands in the way of creating a business environment suitable for the proper and sustainable implementation of the Renewable Energy Act, I

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 shall lead the march to have them investigated even if it may involve personalities whose interests are opposed to the greater good of the Filipino people and of the country, or simply because the law or the IRR needs polishing. I see a need to investigate in aid of legislation. It has been quite a long time since the passage of this law and we have been rather restrictive. I understand that this undertaking is a delicate balancing act of public interests and those of the proponents. Whichever way, the scale should be within an acceptable balance. I will not allow the frustration of this law, most especially because of personal interests. If we do not act with urgency, Mr. Speaker, developers will turn to other markets as the business environment for this sustainable energy resource is not at all feasible! This Congress needs to look into the composition of the NREB. For example, why is there a representative of the coal sector in the NREB? Would that not be a conflict since coal is not a renewable energy source? We need to be assured that every sector of renewable energy is represented, not the fossil fuel industry. We need to look into their procedures. We need to look into how they arrive at their computations and in setting rates for whatever energy project. Their role is sensitive and this Congress needs to perform its oversight obligation by way of investigation in aid of legislation. Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues of this august Chamber, I urge you to join me in this vital undertaking. In the face of spiking fossil fuel prices, global warming and calamities, we owe it to ourselves and our future generations, to take urgent action on this matter. We cannot allow bureaucracy or politics to stand in the way of adopting more sustainable energy sources. I, therefore, move, Mr. Speaker, that my speech be adopted as a resolution and be referred to the appropriate committee, the Committee on Energy, to investigate in aid of legislation. I so move, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much and good afternoon to all of us. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. COJUANGCO (K.). Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker. REP. COJUANGCO (K.). Would the Gentleman yield to some interpellation, Mr. Speaker? REP. ANTONINO. Yes. I would like to yield, my esteemed colleague; however, I made a commitment, my dear colleague, to give time to the rest of our colleagues who intend to make privilege speeches. So, if perhaps with your patience, we can have this interpellation and I will gladly stand here to be interpellated at the next appropriate time. REP. COJUANGCO (K.). Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the Gentleman two short questions, that is all. REP. ANTONINO. If they are only two short questions, I would gladly accede, especially to the Lady from Pangasinan.

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Lady may proceed. REP. COJUANGCO (K.). Yes, all right. First of all, I would just like to know, how much per kilowatt hour will the feed-in tariff be? REP. ANTONINO. Right now, my esteemed colleague, Mr. Speaker, the proposed rate of feed-in tariff for biomass is P7. REP. COJUANGCO (K.). All right. That being so, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Gentleman, so who in the end is going to pay that P7? Where will that come from? REP. ANTONINO. A feed-in tariff is a guaranteed rate that will be paid by the consumer for electricity from biomass that will be fed into the distribution system. REP. COJUANGCO (K.). That being so, Mr. Speaker, would you not agree with me that the price of biomass energy then would not be feasible because of the feed-in tariff which you are going to pass on to the consumers? It is going to be just as bad. It would just be as expensive as coal or other forms of energy that you were complaining about. REP. ANTONINO. I agree, in the short term, that perhaps it would be as expensive, but I believe in the long term that with the rising fuel cost, as we have seen in our recent history and the rising cost of fossil fuels all over the world and we have seen this in our gasoline prices, we have seen this in our generation costs, that I believe that over the long term, renewable energy will be cheaper. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The time of the Gentleman... REP. COJUANGCO (K.). All right. Since I promised, Mr. Speaker, that I will make it short, I will just end my questions with a comment that I still believe that in the long run, it will still just be as expensive, if not more expensive. REP. ANTONINO. I do believe also that nuclear power is feasible. Although it has been put in doubt by the Japan experience, I do believe that we should take steps to really determine whether our country can also go into nuclear power which is also something like a renewable energy source because it is expensive upfront but cheaper in the long run. REP. COJUANGCO (K.). All right, Mr. Speaker, thank you. Thank you to the Gentleman from Nueva Ecija. REP. ANTONINO. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the privilege speech of Hon. Rodolfo W. Antonino, as well as the interpellations thereon, to the appropriate committee.

5 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Representative from Anakpawis, Hon. Rafael V. Mariano. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the nature of the matter on which the Representative from Anakpawis rises? REP. MARIANO. Mr. Speaker, kaugnay po ng historical na kahalagahan ng panawagan ng ating mga manggagawa noong nakaraang Mayo 1 para sa makabuluhang dagdag na sahod at pagbaba ng presyo ng pangunahing bilihin, serbisyo at produktong petrolyo. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Gentleman has 10 minutes. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. MARIANO REP. MARIANO. G. Ispiker, noong Mayo 1, taong kasalukuyan, 2011, ipinagdiwang ang Pandaigdigang Araw ng Paggawa at naging malakas ang panawagan ng mga obrerong Pilipino sa buong bansa para sa makabuluhang dagdag na sahod at pagbaba ng presyo ng mga bilihin. Mr. Speaker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, napapanahon na ang pagbibigay ng makabuluhang dagdag-sahod. Hindi na makaagapay ang kakarampot na sahod ng mga manggagawa dahil sa walang tigil na pagtaas ng presyo ng mga bilihin, serbisyo at produktong petrolyo. Nakapako ang tunay na halaga ng sahod ng mga manggagawang Pilipino mula noong taong 1980 hanggang sa kasalukuyan dahil sa pananalasa ng neoliberal na globalisasyon at dahil na rin sa mga batas na ipinatupad ng gobyerno. Patuloy ang pagbaba ng tunay na halaga ng sahod dahil na rin sa ipinatupad na mga batas katulad ng anti-manggagawang Herrera Law o Republic Act No. 6715 at ang Wage Rationalization Act of 1989 o Republic Act No. 6727 na ipinas o isinabatas sa panahon ng yumaong dating Pangulong Corazon C. Aquino. Lahat ng mga nagdaang administrasyon mula kay Marcos ay nagbigay lang ng barya o mumong umento sa sahod ng mga manggagawa. Noong panahon ni Gng. Corazon C. Aquino, nagtaas ng P82 ang sahod; P16 noong administrasyon ni Ginoong Ramos; at P22 sa termino ni dating Pangulong Estrada. Pinakamaliit ang naibigay noong rehimen ni Gng. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo na may tunay na halaga lamang na P5. Sa ilalim ni Pangulong Noynoy Aquino ngayon ay wala pang dagdag-sahod. Ang tunay na halaga ng sahod noong Pebrero taong 2001 sa simula ng termino ni Gng. Arroyo ay nasa P237; sa pagbaba niya sa puwesto noong Hunyo 2010, ang tunay na halaga ng sahod ay P242. Ibig sabihin, sa halos isang dekada, P5 lang ang itinaas ng tunay na halaga ng sahod. Nitong Pebrero taong kasalukuyan, 2011, ang tunay na halaga ng sahod ay nasa P235 na lamang. Higit na nabalewala ang limos na ibinigay ng mga regional wage boards sa nakaraang taon dahil kinain ito nang buong-buo ng sunud-sunod na pagtaas ng mga bilihin, singil sa pamasahe, singil sa mga yutilidad gaya ng tubig, kuryente,

6 singil sa toll fee at iba pang dagdag na bayarin sa pag-upo ni Pangulong Aquino. Ngayon, Mr. Speaker, nag-anunsyo ng P22 cost of living allowance o COLA. Ang tunay na halaga lang nito ay P12.35 ayon sa Abril taong 2011 na Consumer Price Index. Saan makararating ang P22 na ito? Sa kasalukuyan, Mr. Speaker, nang itayo ang wage boards sa bisa ng Wage Rationalization Act of 1989, puro baryang dagdag-sahod na hindi lalampas sa P26 lang ang natanggap ng mga manggagawa sa ibat ibang rehiyon. Karamihan pa sa mga wage order na inaprubahan ay pagtaas lamang sa emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA) sa halip na pagtaas sa basic pay ng mga manggagawa. Kapag ECOLA, walang pagbabago sa basic pay, 13th month pay, maternity leave, retirement pay, separation pay at iba pang kaakibat na benepisyo. Mr. Speaker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, ngayon sa ilalim ni Pangulong Noynoy, tila walang balak na magbigay ng makabuluhang dagdag-sahod. Nagkoro na rin ang mga grupo ng employer sa pagtutol sa makabuluhang dagdag-sahod. Sa halip na dagdag-sahod, iminungkahi ng Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) na stipend na lang ang ibigay ng wage board na nagkakahalaga ng P13.35. Kahit pamasahe papunta sa trabaho at pauwi sa bahay ng mga manggagawa ay hindi kakasya ang P13.35. Mr. Speaker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, malinaw ang kalakaranpatuloy na sumasadsad ang sahod ng mga manggagawa. Sa ibang salita, patuloy na dine-demolish ang tunay na halaga ng sahod ng mga manggagawa sa harap ng patuloy ding demolisyon sa mga komunidad na maralita partikular dito sa National Capital Region. Kung susuriin ang mga datos na inilalabas ng Yearbook of Labor Statistics Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics (BLES), makikitang mas bumaba ang halaga ng tunay na halaga ng sahod. Ang index of compensation o ang sukatan ng tunay na halaga ng sahod at mga benepisyo tulad ng social security benefits na naitala sa 112.9 noong 2009 ay kapareho lang ng antas noong taong1995. Mr. Speaker, sa kasalukuyan, batay sa pinakahuling datos ng BLES, ang karaniwang sahod kada araw sa construction sector ay P282.50. Nasa P257.71 naman ang karaniwang arawang sahod ng wholesale at retail trade, habang aabot sa P515.55 ang karaniwang sahod ng mga empleyado sa financial services subsector. Sa nonagricultural industries, nasa P325.82 lang kada araw ang natatanggap. Higit na mababa sa sektor ng manufacturing na nasa P300.42 lang, habang P231.01 lang ang arawang sahod ng mga manggagawa sa sektor ng pagmimina at quarrying. Mr. Speaker, malayo kumpara sa umiiral na pinakamataas na minimum wage na P404 sa National Capital Region ang daily cost of living na P957 para sa isang pamilyang may anim na miyembro. Kahit pa dalawa ang kumikita sa isang pamilya, hindi po sasapat para sa mga batayang gastusin. Kulang ng P533 ang kasalukuyang sahod para maabot ang tinatawag na living wage. Mr. Speaker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, ang mga manggagawa sa sektor ng agrikultura ang siyang nakatatanggap ng pinakamababang sahod sa buong bansa. Patuloy din ang pagpapatupad ng wage freeze policy kahit sa mga kumpanyang may mga umiiral na unyon at collective bargaining agreements o CBA.

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 Ang patuloy na pagbulusok ng halaga ng sahod ay dulot ng patakarang LAPIDA o liberalisasyon na nagdudulot ng pagbaha ng imported na kalakal at pumapatay sa mga lokal na negosyo, pribatisasyon na nag-alis ng kontrol sa mga yutilidad gaya ng tubig at kuryente, at deregulasyon na dahilan ng pagsirit ng presyo ng langis, o sa kabuuan ay tinatawag pong LAPIDA. Mr. Speaker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, sinagasaan ng walang tigil na oil price hike ang mamamayan. Ngayong taong 2011, may 14 na beses na pong nagtaas ang presyo ng produktong petrolyo. Ang average na presyo ng diesel ay P48 kada litro, ang gasolina ay P58 kada litro at ang LPG o liquefied petroleum gas, na ginagamit ng maraming household ay nagkakahalaga ng mula P700 hanggang P800 kada 11-kilogramong tangke. Mr. Speaker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, sa halip na pigilan ang pagkaganid ng Shell, Chevron, Petron, Total, Flying V at iba pang kumpanya ng langis, inaprubahan ng Palasyo ang Executive Order No. 32, Series of 2011 o Pantawid Pasadapanibagong subsidyo para sa mga jeepney driver at iba pang bulnerableng sektor, subalit ang kakarampot na subsidyong ito ay kakainin lang ng pinakahuling pagtaas ng presyo ng langis na P1.40 kada litro. Mr. Speaker, pinakamabilis na paraan sana upang mapababa agad ang presyo ng langis ay ang pagtatanggal ng value-added tax sa petrolyo, gayundin ang pagbabasura sa patakarang deregulasyon sa industriya ng langis, subalit ang nilalaman ng Labor Day address ng Pangulo ay hindi po umaayon dito. Habang nakapako ang sahod ng mga obrero, kabilaan naman ang pagtaas ng presyo. Noong Enero, nagtaas ng singil sa toll sa South Luzon Expressway (SLEX), North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) at Subic Clark Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX). Noong Pebrero ay nagtaas ng singil sa tubig ang Manila Water Company ng P1.92 kada cubic meter at ang Maynilad ng P2.30 kada cubic meter sa mga residential customers. Sa parehong buwan ay nagtaas din ng singil sa kuryente ang Manila Electric Company (Meralco) patungong P4.86 kada kilowatt hour. Nitong Mayo, magtataas uli ng singil ang Meralco patungong P5 per kilowatt hour. Mr. Speaker, maging ang mga pagkain, bigas, tinapay, delata, mantika, asukal, gatas, itlog, karne, gulay at iba pang mga pangunahing bilihin ay hindi na rin po abot-kaya ng masa. Pati ang instant noodles na naging staple food na, na karaniwang pagkain na ng mga maralita, ay mataas na rin po ang presyo. Mr. Speaker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, marami sa ating mga kababayan ang nagugutom at nahuhulog sa kumunoy ng kahirapan dahil sa mga pagtaas ng presyo at kawalan ng makabuluhang umento. Sa kabila nito, Mr. Speaker, ang mga malalaking negosyo at kumpanya ay patuloy na kumikita at nagrerehistro ng lumolobong tubo. Sa kanila po, walang regulasyon, walang kontrol, walang minimum. Noong 2010, umabot sa 15.56 bilyong dolyar o P699 bilyon po ang pinagsama-samang yaman ng sampung pinakamayayamang Pilipino kabilang sina Henry Sy, Danding Cojuangco, Lucio Tan at Jaime Zobel de Ayala. Katumbas ito ng minimum na sahod ng mahigit 5.3 milyong manggagawa sa loob ng isang taon. Mr. Speaker, noon ding nakaraan taon, taong 2010, mahigit doble ang inilaki ng netong kita o net income ng San

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 Miguel Corporation na pag-aari nina G. Danding Cojuangco patungong P20.1 bilyon. Kung pagsasama-samahin ang tubo ng mga yunit nito tulad ng alak, pagkain, packaging at power generation, aabot ang consolidated revenues nito sa P205 bilyon mahigit. Mr. Speaker, lumaki ang kita ng SM Investment Corporation, Ayala Corporation at Metro Pacific Investment Corporation kung saan may shares o sapi ang Meralco, Maynilad, North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) at mga pribadong ospital. Ang mga kumpanya ng langis ay palagiang nasa unang sampu ng top 1,000 corporations in the Philippines at nagrerehistro ng lumalaking tubo taun-taon. Mr. Speaker, halos nadoble ang tubo ng top ten corporations sa loob ng isang dekada, mula mahigit P575 bilyon noong 1999 patungong P1.2 trilyon noong 2008. Patunay ito na malaking kasinungalingan ang sinasabi ng mga kapitalista at employers na hindi nila kakayanin na magbigay ng makabuluhang dagdag sa sahod. Mr. Speaker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, kahit sinong manggagawa ang tanungin natin ngayon ay magsasabing kagyat na dapat ipatupad ang isang makabuluhang dagdag-sahod. Higit pa po sa pangkabuhayang pangangailangan, ang usapin ng makabuluhang dagdagsahod ay usapin ng panlipunang hustisya o social justice. Marapat lamang na ang mga manggagawang lumilikha ng yaman ng bansa ay magtamasa ng kanilang nililikha. Mr. Speaker, hindi sapat ang mga subsidyo upang maitawid ang pang-araw-araw na kabuhayan ng mamamayang Pilipino. Sa hanay ng mga magsasaka at mangigisda, nanatiling pundamental na usapin ang pangangailangan ng pagkakaroon ng sariling lupa, kagamitan at kapital sa produksyon, mahusay at makatarungang presyo ng kanilang produkto, at sapat at nakabubuhay na netong kita. Mr. Speaker, isang malaking insulto sa masang magsasaka ang bagong rice subsidy na inanunsyo ng Pangulo noong Mayo 1. Magbibigay daw umano ng ayuda ito sa dalawang milyong mahihirap na magsasaka at mangingisda para makaagapay sa tumataas na presyo ng pagkain at bilihin. Kung sino ang nagtatanim ng pagkain at lumilikha ng pagkain ay siyang walang makain. Nasaan ang pagiging matuwid sa kalagayang ito? Isang paalala sa mga wage boards, sa mga employers at sa gobyerno na rin, Mr. Speakerhindi po pulubi ang mga manggagawa. Huwag po natin silang bigyan o hagisan lamang ng limos o mumo. Ang kailangan po nila ay nakabubuhay na sahod at hindi mga panandaliang pantawid. Umaasa po ang Kinatawang ito, G. Speaker, na susuportahan ng Kongreso ang panukalang legislated wage increase na nakahapag sa House Committee on Labor and Employment. Lubhang kinakailangan po ng mga manggagawa at kanilang pamilya ang makabuluhang dagdagsahod. Huwag po sana nating biguin ang ating mga kapatid na manggagawa. Maraming, maraming salamat po, G. Speaker, at sa inyo po mga kapwa ko Kinatawan. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the

7 privilege speech of the Honorable Mariano to the appropriate committee. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) the Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Floor Leader is recognized. ROLL CALL REP. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that we call the roll. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General will please call the roll. The Secretary General called the roll, and the result is as follows, per Journal No. 67: PRESENT Abad Abayon Acharon Acop Aggabao Aglipay Agyao Albano Alcover Almario Amante-Matba Amatong Andaya Angara Angping Antonino Apacible Apostol Aquino Arenas Arnaiz Arquiza Arroyo (D.) Asilo Aumentado Bag-ao Bagatsing Baguilat Balindong Banal Barzaga Bataoil Batocabe Bello Belmonte (F.) Belmonte (V.) Benaldo Binay Bonoan-David Briones Bulut-Begtang Cabaluna Cabilao Yambao Cagas Cajayon Calimbas-Villarosa Calixto-Rubiano Canonigo Cari Casio Castelo Castro Catamco Cerafica Chipeco Climaco Co Cojuangco (E.) Cojuangco (K.) Colmenares Cortuna Crisologo Cruz-Gonzales Dalog Datumanong Daza Defensor Del Mar Del Rosario (A. A.) Diaz Durano Dy Ejercito Emano Enverga Eriguel Escudero Espina Estrella Evardone Farias Ferrer (J.)

8 Ferriol Flores Fortuno Fua Fuentebella Garay Garbin Garcia (A.) Garcia (P.) Garcia (P.J.) Garin (J.) Gatchalian Go (A.) Golez (A.) Golez (R.) Gomez Gonzales (A.) Gonzales (N.) Gonzalez Guanlao Gunigundo Haresco Hataman-Salliman Ilagan Javier Joson Kho (D.) Lacson-Noel Lagdameo (A.) Lagdameo (M.) Lagman Lanete Leonen-Pizarro Lico Limkaichong Loong Lopez (C.) Loyola Macapagal-Arroyo (G.) Madrona Malapitan Maliksi Mandanas Maraon Marcoleta Marcos Mariano Mendoza (J.) Mendoza (R.) Mercado (H.) Mercado (R.) Mercado-Revilla Miraflores Montejo Nava Noel Nograles Obillo Ocampos Olivares Ortega (F.) Ortega (V.) Padilla Paez Palatino Palmones Pancho Pangandaman (S.) Panotes Paras Payuyo Piamonte Pichay Ping-ay Plaza Primicias-Agabas Puno Quimbo Quisumbing Ramos Relampagos Remulla Rivera Robes Rodriguez (I.) Rodriguez (M.) Rodriguez (R.) Roman Romualdez Romualdo Romulo Sacdalan Sahidulla Sakaluran Salimbangon Salvacion Sema Socrates Sy-Alvarado Taada Teodoro Teves Tieng Ting Tinio Tomawis Tugna Ty Umali (R.) Unabia Ungab Unico Valencia Vargas-Alfonso Velarde Velasco Vergara Villafuerte Villarica Violago Yap (S.) Yu Zamora-Apsay

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 THE SECRETARY GENERAL. The House is in receipt of the official notice of absence of the following Members: Reps. Alvarez, Mercedes K.; Bondoc; Bravo; Collantes; Dayanghirang; De Jesus; Del Rosario, Anthony G.; Dimaporo, Fatima Aliah Q.; Ecleo; Go, Ana Cristina S.; Lopez, Carol Jayne B.; Osmea; Pacquiao; Quibranza-Dimaporo, Imelda; Romarate; Sarmiento, Cesar V.; and Tupas. The Speaker is present. The roll call shows that 205 Members responded to the call. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). With 205 Members present, the Chair declares the presence of a quorum. The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Neri J. Colmenares of the Party-List Bayan Muna for his collective privilege. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the nature of the matter in which the Honorable Colmenares rises? REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the issue of respect for the rights of our urban poor and respect for the laws passed by this honorable Body with regard to the rights of our urban poor kababayans. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Gentleman has 10 minutes. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. COLMENARES REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 1973, Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 293, giving lands to government employees including members of the armed forces, the Presidential Security Group, and other beneficiaries. Lampas po sa 7,000 hectares ang lupang iyan. Marami po sa kababayan natin ang natuwa na nagkaroon sila ng lupa. Sila ay nanirahan doon, nagsipagtayuan ng mga bahay, nagsipagtayuan ng mga eskwelahan, simbahan, barangay halls, at sila ay mapayapang nanirahan dito sa malaking lupain na ibinigay ng gobyerno. Ang isang lupa rito ay tinawag na Pangarap Village156 hectares po ito, at ngayon po, may 40,000 na residents na ang nakatira rito sa Pangarap Village. Noong 2002, nag-file ang Solicitor General ng isang kaso, Mr. Speaker, na ipawalang-bisa ang mga titulo na in-apply ng Carmel Development, Inc., na siyang pagmamay-ari ng mga Araneta, and headed by Greggy Araneta. Apparently, in-between this period, nag-apply ang Carmel Development, Inc. ng mga titulo sa lupang ito at ito ang kanilang claim sa kanilang ownership sa lupang ito. Nanalo ang Solicitor General sa Regional Trial Court at nag-order ang Regional Trial Court na ipawalang-bisa ang mga titulong ito. Nag-apila ang Carmel sa Court of Appeals na nag-reverse ng desisyon ng Regional Trial Court. Nakaapila sa Supreme Court ang kaso at nag-aksyon ang Supreme Court in favor of CDI or Carmel Development, Inc., nitong ilang taong nakalipas. Sa ngayon po, ang kasong iyan ay pending. May motion for reconsideration po si Solicitor General Joel Cadiz

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 sa Korte Suprema sa kasalukuyan. Pero hindi po iyan ang aking isyu sa ngayon dito kundi iyong legalities ng lupang ito. Ano po ang nangyari matapos nanaig ang CDI sa Court of Appeals at sa Korte Suprema? They are now imposing their ownership of the land despite the pendency of the motion for reconsideration filed by the Solicitor General. Ano po ang resulta? Umiikot po ang mga fully armed security guards nilafully armed, at ang sabi ng mga residente ay M-14 at M-16 ang dala; nagpapamahagi ng notices to vacate at sinasabihan ang mga mamamayan ng Pangarap Village na umalis na kayo sa inyong mga tahanan. Pangalawa po, nagtayo po sila ng bakod sa maraming pwesto roon sa Pangarap Village o dili kaya, mga guard posts na kung saan hinaharang nila ang mga residente at ang mga materyal o kagamitan ng mga residente na pumapasok sa area. Pangatlo po, may mga demolisyon na ring naganap hatinggabi, alas-dos ng umaga, ala-una ng umagasa ilang bahagi ng Pangarap Village. Ito po, sa pakiramdam namin sa Bayan Muna, ay isang paglabag sa karapatan ng ating kababayang mahihirap doon sa Pangarap Village. Mantakin po natin1973 in-award ang lupa, doon na lumaki ang mga anak ng mga mamamayan sa Pangarap Village, doon na nag-aral, doon na sila nagkaapo, may mga simbahan, may mga clinic, may barangay hall, may mga barangay elections doon, lahat po bilang isang komunidad. Ngayon, threatened with demolition ang 156 hectares na tinitirhan ng 40,000 na residents. Dapat lang bang mangamba sila? Dapat lang po dahil sa akala nila, sila na ang may-ari ng lupa ayon sa presidential decree ng gobyerno. Ayon pa nga sa mga titulo, ang ilan sa kanila ay may titulo na, batay sa award sa kanila. Iyon po bang mga sinasabi nating informal settlers, na derisively na tinatawag na squatters, ay may karapatan sa ilalim ng batas? Hindi sila pwedeng i-demolish hanggat walang court order; hindi sila pwedeng i-demolish hanggat walang relokasyon, lalo na kaya po itong ating mga kababayan sa Pangarap Village na granted sila ng karapatang manirahan doon ng gobyerno mismo. Ang problema po ay ganito: dahil sa mga aksyong iyan, tumaas ang tensyon doon sa area, at ngayon, dumating ang karahasan noong Abril 28 ng taon lang na ito. Ilang araw lang ang nakalipas po. Ang mga residente ng Pangarap Village ay nagvi-vigil dahil nakarinig sila ng balitang sila ay ide-demolish o may ilang bahay na ide-demolish ng hatinggabing iyon. Noong mga hating-gabi na, umalingawngaw ang batingaw ng simbahan na nag-aanunsyo na mayroong demolisyong mangyayari. Pumunta sila sa lugar, hinarang sila ng mga security guards ng CDI. Sa nangyaring palitan siguro ng mga salita, umalingawngaw ang putok at tatlong residente po ang nasugatan dahil sa insidenteng iyon. Isang menor de edad ang tinamaan sa leeg; isang kagawad ng barangay na nagda-drive ng dump truck at isang residente ang nasugatantama po ng baril, doon sa insidenteng iyon. Dapat po natin sanang tuligsain ang karahasan sa Pangarap Village. Dapat huwag nating payagan na ang isang issue sa lupa ay hahantong sa karahasan. Para siguro sa ilan sa atin, kung mapaalis tayo sa bahay natin, malaking perwisyo ito, pero makakahanap pa naman tayo ng iba pang

9 bahay. Pero para sa mga kapatid natin sa Pangarap Village, ang bahay ay buhay. Kapag pinaalis sila sa kanilang bahay, iyon na rin ang kabuhayan nila, iyon na rin ang buhay nila. Parang pinatay na rin sila kapag sila ay tinanggalan ng tirahan. Kung kaya, dapat lamang na sundin ng Araneta Group of Companies at ng CDI ang proseso sa ilalim ng batas. Hindi dapat umikot ang security guards na may dala-dalang mga notice to vacate kasama ang M-14 at M-16. Hindi dapat gumawa ng mga hakbang na makapagpataas ng tensyon para magkaroon ng karahasan sa Pangarap Village na binabanggit ko. Ang demolisyon, ang karahasan sa Pangarap Village, o kahit saan pa mang demolisyong nangyayari sa buong bansa ay dapat nating tutulan. Dapat i-ensure natin na hindi lamang may bahay, kundi may kabuhayan din ang ating mga mahihirap na kapatid. Kung kaya ako ay tumayo sa ngayon para kondenahin ang karahasan na naganap sa Pangarap Village at para sabihin sana, sa kaalaman ng lahat, na tayo ay tumulong para maabot natin, kasama ang taumbayan ng Pangarap Village, ang kanilang minimithing katiwasayan sa kanilang pagmamayari ng lupa. Noong 1973, nagkaroon ng katuparan ang pangarap ng marami nating kababayan noong in-award ng gobyerno ang lupang iyan sa Pangarap Village. Ngayon, ang pangarap na iyan ay pinangangambahang sisirain ng ilang mayayaman dahil sa mga planong magkaroon ng mga malls o magkaroon ng financial district, kapalit ng bahay at buhay ng mga nakatira sa Pangarap Village. Tumayo ako ngayon para sabihing tulungan natin sila, tulungan natin ang lahat ng mahihirap na dumaranas sa ganitong kalagayan na maabot ang kanilang pangarap, kondenahin ang karahasan at demolisyon sa Pangarap Village. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker. (Applause) THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize for his interpellation the Gentleman from the First District of Caloocan, the Hon. Oscar G. Malapitan. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, the Gentleman from Caloocan is recognized. REP. MALAPITAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, ako po ay nakikiisa sa mga tinuran ng ating kapatid, Congressman Colmenares ng Bayan Muna. Ang Pangarap Village po ay nasa unang congressional district ng Lungsod ng Caloocan. Lahat po ng mga sinabi niya ay tama simula sa umpisa nang ito ay i-award ng dating Pangulong Marcos sa mga tao na naroroon. Ngayon ho, Mr. Speaker, ang pinangangamba ko lamang ho roon ay tungkol sa katahimikan at kaligtasan ng ating mga kababayan doon sa Pangarap Village. Tama rin ho ang sinasabi ng aking kaibigan na may mga taong gumagalaw ho roon, mga nakamaskara pa, gumagalaw sa gabi at patuloy na tinatakot ang atin pong mga kababayan. Hindi ho yata nasabi na may nasunog pa o sinunog doon sa lugar na iyon na hanggang ngayon ay wala pang ibinibigay na

10 kongkretong report ang pulis o ang bumbero tungkol sa mga aksidenteng nagaganap dito sa Pangarap Village. So, sana sa panawagan ay tulungan kami ng Kongresong ito upang sa ganoon ay magkaroon ng mapayapang paguusap tungkol sa lupain sa Pangarap Village. Bagamat ang nasabing usapin ay nasa Korte Suprema, may sinasabi sila roong tungkol sa desisyon, pero may motion for reconsideration naman tayo na habang hindi pa naaayos ang motion for reconsideration, ay igalang muna ni Ginoong Araneta o ng kanyang mga tauhan ang mga kahilingan ng mga tao rito sa Pangarap Village. Ang desisyon ay with finality. Although with finality, may motion for reconsideration din naman. At sana naman ho ay mapagbigyan at makita ng Kataas-taasang Suprema ang dapat nilang gawin at para matulungan ang amin pong mga kababayan. So, Mr. Speaker, ako po ay tumayo rito para magbigay suporta sa mga tinuran ni Congressman Colmenares. Thank you. REP. COLMENARES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague, Congressman Malapitan, for his support, and I am sure the people of Pangarap Village recognize and acknowledge their support. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the speech of the Honorable Colmenares and the manifestation in support of the Honorable Malapitan to the appropriate committee. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none... REP. VILLAFUERTE. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the... REP. VILLAFUERTE. I would like to modify the motion to which I agree that the House should not only refer this for investigation by the appropriate committee, but that the House must send a delegation to that Pangarap Village composed of Congressmen who will reassure the people of our support. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection to the motion of the Congressman from Camarines Sur, and the motion of the Floor Leader? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the same is approved. The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Pablo P. Garcia from the Second District of Cebu. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Cebu? REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, the subject of my speech is about my legal status individually as a Member of this House.

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Gentleman has 10 minutes. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. GARCIA (P.) REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, and my esteemed colleagues in this Chamber. I rise to speak but with reluctant willingness. So, I ask my colleagues to please listen and afterwards to interact and, better still, to react because this is one time when I wish I can be proven wrong. For a long time, I have been debating in my mind on the question of whether to speak or not to speak freely and fully before this august Body on a subject of grave national concern and about which my colleagues and the people of this country have the right to know. The reason for my indecision and hesitation is the fact that what I am going to say is something that is not a welcome development for all those who ran and won in that historic May 10, 2010 election. Of course that includes all of us, as Members of this House. Moreover, what I have to say is a serious indictment against the conduct of the COMELEC in that election of such wickedness and severity as to possibly constitute culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of the public trust. Of course, for those who ran and won in the May 10, 2010 election, there is no question about the reality of their election to the positions they now hold and, of course, that also includes all of us. There are just lingering doubts and nagging questions concerning the legitimacy of the electoral process by which they were elected. It is a truism of ancient respectability that a poisoned tree is not expected to yield an unblemished fruit. In other words, the illegitimacy of the whole electoral process can have a negative impact on the legal quality of the election results. Sadly and regrettably, this unwelcome and undeserved situation has been brought about through no fault of the candidates who ran and won fair and square in the election, but whose victories were spoiled solely by the hocus pocus committed by the COMELEC. That is why, Mr. Speaker, for a time, I have chosen to just keep quiet about it. I felt that it was perhaps prudent and safe to hold my peace and refrain from rocking the boat, so to speak. An inner voice was telling me, Why should it be you to raise questions about the May 10, 2010 election? Let others do it because you yourself and five other members of your family were candidates in that election? And so, I kept my silence. One year has elapsed since the May 10, 2010 election. Today, May 10, is the first anniversary of that election and people are no longer talking about it, perhaps, because they are already preparing for the next election. Before long, that election will pass into history. I was beginning to feel uneasy or even guilty that the election would become a thing of the past before I could tell my colleagues and the people of this country the whole truth about that election. So, for me, the moment of truth has come and I must obey what my conscience commands me as it is my dutyto speak out the truth even if it hurts. I am comforted by the thought that after all, the truth shall set us free. So, Mr. Speaker, here is the inconvenient and embarrassing truth: the election that the COMELEC

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 conducted and administered on May 10, 2010 was illegal, irregular, and constitutionally infirm. To put it mildly, this simply means that all of us here, elected as Members of this House, were elected in an illegally and constitutionally flawed electoral process. Let me explain. Under the Constitution, the primary function and duty of the COMELEC is to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, referendum and recall. The COMELEC does not make laws; only Congress does. The laws that should govern the conduct of the May 10, 2010 election are Republic Act No. 9369, which amends Republic Act No. 8436; B.P. No. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code; and RA No. 7166 or the Synchronized National and Local Election Law. This Act, Republic Act No. 9369, authorizes the COMELEC to use another system than the manual which is the automated election system or AES for national and local elections. This Act was approved in January 2007. Mr. Speaker, under Republic Act No. 9525 or the P11.3 billion supplemental budget that the Fourteenth Congress most of us are Members of that Congresspassed for the funding of the automated May 10, 2010 elections, it is specifically provided as a condition for the disbursement of the amount appropriated. This is the pertinent portion of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9525: Section 2. Use of Funds. x x x Provided, however, that disbursement of the amounts herein appropriated or any part thereof shall be authorized only in strict compliance with the Constitution, the provisions of Republic Act No. 9369 and other election laws incorporated in said Act so as to ensure the conduct of a free, orderly, clean, honest and credible election, and shall adopt such measures that will guaranty transparency and accuracy in the selection of the relevant technology of the machines to be used on May 10, 2010 automated national and local election. Incidentally, it was this Representation who framed this colatilla in the P11.3 billion supplemental budget or Republic Act No. 9525. So, the question has been asked: Did the COMELEC strictly comply with the provisions of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9369, and the other election laws incorporated in said Act in conducting and administering the May 10, 2010 election? That is the question. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is a resounding and embarrassing No. What actually happened was that the COMELEC simply threw out of the window, so to speak, Republic Act No. 9369, and, in conspiracy with Smartmatic, proceeded to conduct and administer the election in their own wicked ways and in gross violation of all existing laws. How come? How was the COMELEC able to do it? What did happen which should not have happened? What did not happen which should have happened? In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the COMELEC and Smartmatic from the beginning pulled the wool, as it were, over the eyes of the Filipino people and mesmerized them into believing that they were using or implementing an automated election system or AES in the May 10, 2010 election when in truth and in fact, they were not. In other

11 words, contrary to what COMELEC and Smartmatic had been preaching and propagating all along, the election system that was improvised on May 10, 2010 was not that of an automated election system as prescribed and mandated by law. Actually, that system was purely a COMELEC-Smartmatic invention or concoction. If it was not, what then is an AES or automated election system? As defined and prescribed by Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9369, an AES or automated election system is: SEC. 2. Definition of Terms.As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean: 1. Automated election system, hereinafter referred to as AES a system using appropriate technology which has been demonstrated in the voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission of election results, and other electoral process. In other words, an AES is one or a system where a machine is used by the voter in the act of voting or in recording his vote. The automation should start with the voting, which is the first and the most important step in the electoral process. In an AES, the act of recording the vote of the voter is to be done by means of a voting machine. In short, Republic Act No. 9369 prescribes and mandates the use of a voting machine with which to record or register the vote of the voter. The mandate to use a voting machine is very clear, nay, it is self-evident from the other provisions of Republic Act No. 9369. Unfortunately, the COMELEC totally ignored these provisions in the May 10, 2010 election. The voting was manualthe voter manually filled his ballot by shading a small oval before the name of the candidate on the ballot and not by the use of a machine. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9369 specifies the minimum functional capabilities of the automated election system that should be used, such as, among others, provision for a voterverified paper audit trail. What is a VVPAT? A voter verified paper audit trail is a receipt which the voter gets or receives from the voting machine after he voted. This receipt will indicate how the vote or the ballot of the voter can be later identified. Then, one minimum functional capability of the machine is to provide the voter a system of verification to find out whether or not the machine has registered his choice. This above-described minimum functional capability can be performed only by the use of a voting machine and not by a mere counting machine such as the PCOS. Finally, and as a clincher, Section 13 of RA No. 9369 prescribes that the voting machine to be used must be equipped with an electronic display where the voter can read and review how he has voted. Thus, the pertinent portion of said section provides: Official Ballot.The Commission shall prescribe the format of the electronic display and/or the size and form of the official ballot, which shall contain the titles of the position to be filled and/or the proposition to be voted upon in an initiative, referendum or plebiscite. Where practicable, electronic displays must be constructed to present the names of all candidates for the same position in the same page or screen, otherwise, the electronic

12 displays must be constructed to present the entire ballot to the voter, in a series of sequential pages, and to ensure that the voter sees all of the ballot options on all pages before completing his or her vote and to allow the voter to review and change all ballot choices prior to completing and casting his or her ballot. In other words, the voter can see from the electronic display, with which the voting machine is equipped, his ballot, the names of the candidates and the choice that he has registered and, afterwards, even review his choices and make corrections, if necessary. All of us have voted in the last elections. Was that provided for in the machine that was used by the COMELEC? Again, the above prescription can be performed only by a voting machine and is beyond the functional capability of a mere counting machine such as the PCOS that the COMELEC and Smartmatic improvised in the May 10, 2010 election. It is probably because of the novelty and intricacy of the operation of an electronic election system. It is mandated by the law, RA No. 9369, as follows: SEC 3. Board of Election Inspectors.Where AES shall be adopted, at least one member of the Board of Election Inspectors shall be an information technology-capable person, who is trained or certified by the DOST to use the AES. x x x In the 76,000 or so precincts in the country in the last elections, the Board of Election Inspectors throughout the country should have, according to this law, one (1) member who is IT competent as certified by the DOST. What happened? This provision was completely ignored by the COMELEC in the May 10, 2010 election. There was no DOSTtrained or certified IT-capable member in the Board of Election Inspectors serving in that election throughout the country. All told, the COMELEC, in defiance of its mandate under the Constitution, did not conduct and administer the May 10, 2010 election in accordance with the provisions of RA No. 9369, neither that of B.P. No. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code nor that of Republic Act No. 7166 on synchronized national and local election. In a manner of speaking, the May 10, 2010 election was a lawless election. This is unprecedented in the more than a hundred years of democratic elections held in this country. Next question: Did the commissioners of the COMELEC and other executive officials of that office know that what they were doing was in violation not only of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9369, but also of other election laws incorporated in said Act? The answer sadly and regrettably is yes. Yes, they all knew it from the very beginning. Even as early as the demonstration made by the COMELEC in this hall, they were told that they could not conduct an election according to the system they have demonstrated unless and until Republic Act No. 9369 is amended or a new election law is passed. We have actually discussed this matter with the commissioners. Our distinguished colleague, Congressman Mandanas, was present during that meeting. We have the proverbial smoking gun to prove that they knew that what they were doing was in violation of the law. The most difficult question that I wished I could have

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 refrained from asking but I am constrained to ask at this point is: since, as already shown, the May 10, 2010 election was illegal, irregular and constitutionally infirm, what is the impact of this inconvenient fact or circumstance on the legal character of the positions now held by those who ran and won in said election? Of course, that also includes all of us. Mr. Speaker, the prevailing jurisprudence on the law on public officers is that with respect to the legal character of their positions, there are two classes of public officers, depending upon the legal circumstances surrounding their appointment or election to their positions. These are: they are either de facto or de jure. Under what class will those who ran and won in the May 10, 2010 election belong? Are they de facto or de jure? At this point, Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to feel like the man standing on the edge of a precipice. He does not want to look down for fear of what he is going to see down below. So, my esteemed colleagues in this Chamber, let us think for ourselves as to the class of public officers under which we belong: Is it de facto or de jure? To put it bluntly, are we de facto or de jure Members of this House? Of course, it is not what we think that matters. It is what the law says it is. Dura lex sed lex. Strictly speaking and in point of law, we fall under the first classde facto officers; but the good news, Mr. Speaker, is that in any case, what is important and reassuring is the fact that under the de facto doctrine, and this is sustained by abundant jurisprudence, the acts of de facto officers are, by necessity and is a matter of public necessity, public policy, rather, lawful, valid and legally unassailable. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and in view of all the foregoing considerations, it is important, nay, it is imperative, that this House immediately conduct an investigation in aid of legislation on the unfortunate and incredible circumstances surrounding the conduct of the May 10, 2010 election and of the measures that need to be taken not only to determine responsibility and culpability therefor, but more importantly, to see to it that never again shall the COMELEC be allowed to brazenly trample upon the Constitution and the rule of law in future elections in this country. I so move, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes. What is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Davao del Sur? REP. CAGAS. May I ask, probably, one or two questions only from the very respected Congressman from Cebu. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). If the Gentleman from Cebu so desires. REP. GARCIA (P.). Gladly, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Please proceed. REP. CAGAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, this Representation would like to congratulateI fondly call the Gentleman from Cebu, Manong Pablingfor such a courageous

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 speech. Manong Rudy says, speech; Rudy, not Rudy Farias. I could probably count from my fingers only a few who can claim here in this august Chamber that our election into office or our being here, Mr. Speaker, is a result of a poisonous tree. In other words, we might have been elected fraudulently or illegitimately. That is why, Mr. Speaker, perhaps, there are only so few of us left tonight, present, Mr. Speaker. Tingnan ninyo, bilangin natin. Kaunti na lang o. Baka naniwala na illegitimate tayo talaga, Mr. Speaker, kaya kaunti lang ang tao. Mr. Speaker, pagpasensyahan na ninyo ako, I am not as bright and excellent, or I am not even excellent at all like Congressman Manong Pabling. I could probably understand where his frustrations are coming from but ito lang po ang question ko bilang simpleng Mambabatas. Nong, magbinisaya lang ko kay taga-Cebu naman si Manong Pabling, kung puwede bang magbinisaya ako? REP. GARCIA (P.). O sige. REP. CAGAS. Ah, okay. Sa tan-aw ba nimo, Nong, dapat ba i-vacate na nato mga lingkuranan nato dire kay wa may hata kuwan, napili sa sakto nga pamaagi tungod sa mga depekto sa balaod sa COMELEC? Dapat ba manglakaw na lang dani? Unsa may solusyon nani, Nong? REP. GARCIA (P.). Actually, as far as the position of the distinguished colleague from Mindanao is concerned, the very active and very handsome Gentleman, there is no cause to worry. Under the de facto doctrine, the acts of de facto officers are perfectly valid, lawful and are not unassailable. Let me quote from American jurisprudence the basis and reason for a de facto doctrine: The de facto doctrine was engrafted upon the law as a matter of policy and necessity to protect the interest of the public and individuals involved in the official acts of persons exercising the duty of an officer without actually being one in strict point of law. We are classified or to be classified as de facto under one of the known definitions of a de facto officer, and let me quote again from American jurisprudence: A person is a de facto officer where he is occupying the position under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public. That is actually what happened in the last election. REP. CAGAS. Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt our distinguished colleague, I have observed from your answers thatagain, with all due respect, I respect you, Manong, so much; I can discern that your answers would show that you are portraying the ineligibilities of a performing public officer

13 or elected officer. I am more concerned of what makes our seats here illegal or illegitimate, Mr. Speaker. In other words, I want to be sure, Mr. Speaker, that we did not campaign in vain because as per statement of our distinguished colleague, it would sound unfair to everybody to claim that Carlo Nograles was elected illegally, or Thelma Almario was elected illegally, or even Cong. Raul Daza who has been here for the longest timeI would believe that Raul Daza has been elected legitimately and legally for the past 30 years or so, as Congressman, as governor. So, Mr. Speaker, I would not belabor our colleague further, I would just want to be clarified about the purpose of his inquiry or his resolution that there should be a distinction between the Gentlemans objective as far as the law and the COMELEC are concerned, and as far as the legitimacy of the election of Congressmen, mayors and governors is concerned, Mr. Speaker. Iyon lang naman ang concern ko. Sana lang, let us just remove the word illegitimacy as far as our elections are concerned because I am sure all of us worked hard to become where we are right now, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, distinguished colleague from Cebu. REP. GARCIA (P.). What I was saying was that the election was done not in accordance with law. It was the electoral process that was illegal, but the reality of your being elected is there in point of fact. It is just like being transported from one place to another. You should have been transported in a Cadillac but you were transported in a tricycle, but you arrived at your place of destination. It cannot be denied that there were some defects or there were some flaws in the process because nobodythe COMELEC cannot say that they did not violate the law. I was referring to a smoking gun to show or to prove that the COMELEC knew that they were violating the law. Here is a draft bill prepared by the COMELEC after our breakfast meeting at Annabels. Since they could not conduct the election in accordance with their system, the system that they have contemplated or thought of doing, they presented a draft bill to the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, prepared by the COMELEC; and here, they amended the sections I have earlier referred tothe sections referring to the minimum functional capabilities of the machine that should be used. Also, the need for an electronic display, they also amended that portion. REP. CAGAS. Therefore, am I correct or even incorrect to conclude that there was blatant, flagrant, intentional and willful violation of the law by the COMELEC, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague? REP. GARCIA (P.). You said it. REP. CAGAS. Then, I rest my case and I will give way to other interpellators, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Cavite? REP. BARZAGA. Will our distinguished colleague from Cebu, Mr. Speaker, permit some interpellations coming from this Representation?

14 REP. GARCIA (P.). Willingly and thankfully. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Please proceed. REP. BARZAGA. Well, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague, I am really alarmed by the statement of our colleague from Cebu that the election that was conducted last May 10, 2010 happened to be an illegal election, with the conclusion that all those elected in the May 10, 2010 election are de facto officers and that would include the President, the Vice President, the Senators, all the Members of the House, and all local officials down to the councilors. My first inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is that our distinguished colleague from Cebu proceeds from the theory that the election is illegal inasmuch as there has been a violation made by the COMELEC insofar as the conditions provided for under Republic Act No. 9525 are concerned; inasmuch as under Republic Act No. 9525, all expenditures provided for under Republic Act No. 9525 should be in accordance with Republic Act No. 9369. Will that be a correct appreciation of the statement of our colleague from Cebu? REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond in a way that would not be as bigla. When something is done in violation of the law, the only conclusion is that the act is illegal. Precisely, when Speaker Nograles asked me, in the Fourteenth Congress, after our all-party caucus, to craft the colatilla in order that there should be a law before the May 10, 2010 election, and we approved this on the floor, the colatilla that I drafted, and this was in accordance also with the understanding with the COMELEC, was this: Provided, however, that no disbursement of the amount herein appropriated or any part thereof shall be authorized unless and until Congress passes a lawa special lawto govern the May 10, 2010 election. We approved that here on Second Reading on the floor. Afterwards, the Speaker asked me that the COMELEC told him or asked him to change the colatilla because they could not start preparing with that colatilla. So, I was also asked to draft the colatilla for Republic Act No. 9525, which is now what I have just read, that disbursement of the amount appropriated shall be authorized only in strict compliance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9369, because if we complied with Republic Act No. 9369, the last election would have been a manual election, except, perhaps, for certain pilot areas, because Republic Act No. 9369 provides for two systems of electionthe manual system and the automated election system. Republic Act No. 9369 also provides that the automated election system should first be conducted in certain pilot areas. That is the reason why we have this colatilla or proviso in Republic Act No. 9525. Mr. Speaker, let us not be so much upset by saying that the election was illegal because if it were not in accordance with law, if it were in violation of the law, how else shall we call it? REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, would the distinguished colleague agree that notwithstanding the glaring violations

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 committed by the COMELEC insofar as the conduct of May 10, 2010 elections is concerned, up to the present, despite the lapse of more than one year, no person, even losing candidates, has questioned legally or have filed a petition in court saying that the election conducted by the COMELEC in May 10 would be illegal and, therefore, all officials elected thereunder would be considered de facto officers? There were election protests but the protests are premised on other grounds, not on the ground that that election was illegal. May we know the reaction of our distinguished colleague insofar as this point is concerned? REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, the legality or illegality of an act is not to be determined by the presence of a person or a party that questions the act. What is illegal is illegal even if no party will question its illegality. REP. BARZAGA. Well, Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished colleague from Cebu agree that insofar as the Members of the House are concerned, any person for that matter does not have the authority to declare that an act is illegal? It is only the courts which have the power to declare whether an act that was committed is illegal or not. Therefore, in the absence of any case filed in court, or any declaration coming from the court, then the presumption is that the act is legal pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Court, that we assume that the duties of the COMELEC are regularly done. REP. GARCIA (P.). With due respect, I would like to disagree to that statement that because nobody complains, then it is presumed to be legal. We are lawyers; we are lawmakers; and we know when an act is in accordance with or in violation of the law. We do not have to wait for the courts to declare it illegal. Murder is murder even if the heirs of the deceased do not complain. REP. BARZAGA. Well, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague, assuming that, indeed, all the elected officers in the May 10, 2010 elections are de facto officers from the President up to the lowest councilor, would our status as holders of the offices to which we have been elected still be questioned at present? REP. GARCIA (P.). I would assume that those who ran in that election did not also complain. REP. BARZAGA. So, in other words, we shall continue in office up to June 30, 2013. REP. GARCIA (P.). Of course, that is the de facto doctrine. REP. BARZAGA. Yes, notwithstanding that if we even assume that the election happened to be illegal. REP. GARCIA (P.). Of course, yes. REP. BARZAGA. One final point, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague: do you think that the blatant act of the COMELEC of not complying with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9369 constitutes an appropriate ground for impeachment

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 such as willful violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust? REP. GARCIA (P.). At this point, I am not inclined to take that move. The Chairman has resigned; others retired; and I am more concerned with the future that the COMELEC conduct and administer the election in accordance with the law. In the last election, the COMELEC made the law without regard to the Constitution and existing laws. For example, the COMELEC applied Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369 in setting the filing of the certificate of candidacy much, much ahead of the election and also in ruling that after the filing of the certificate of candidacy, but before the campaign period, there is no premature campaigning. That is in accordance with Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369. Under the third paragraph of Section 13, it is provided: For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/ petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon that start of the aforesaid campaign period. This is the third paragraph of Section 13. Yet, the COMELEC did not follow and, in fact, violated the first paragraph which I have just quoted, which says that the COMELEC shall prescribe the format of the electronic display, et cetera. That is in the first paragraph and, yet, the COMELEC determined for itself which portion of the law to follow and which portion to violate. REP. BARZAGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague. REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the pleasure of the Minority Leader? REP. LAGMAN. May I know whether the distinguished Gentleman from Cebu would entertain a few questions? REP. GARCIA (P.). Willingly. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Please proceed. REP. LAGMAN. Can the distinguished Gentleman restate very briefly the principal thesis and import of his privilege speech? REP. GARCIA (P.). I have said what I wanted to say, but to oblige the distinguished Minority Leader, what I said was that the law that should have been enforced and administered by the COMELEC is Republic Act No. 9369 and the other election laws incorporated in said Act, namely: the Omnibus

15 Election Code and Republic Act No. 7166. The COMELEC willfully and knowingly violated the provisions of Republic Act No. 9369 and the other election laws incorporated in said Act. REP. LAGMAN. In other words REP. GARCIA (P.). So, what can be said, what must be said, is that the last election was not conducted in accordance with the law. Perhaps that is mild enough. REP. LAGMAN. In other words, the principal argument or contention of the distinguished Gentleman is that for purposes of the May 10, 2010 election, the relevant and enforceable law was Republic Act No. 9369. REP. GARCIA (P.). Yes, precisely. In the resolutions of the COMELEC and in their public announcements, they repeatedly said that they were making these resolutions and instructions in accordance with Republic Act No. 9369. REP. LAGMAN. Now, distinguished Gentleman, that principal thesis or import that Republic Act No. 9369 should be the relevant and enforceable election law for the last elections was the anchorage of your petition before the Supreme Court. Is it not? REP. GARCIA (P.). No. This is unfortunate. Earlier, Atty. Harry Roque et al., filed a case in the Supreme Court questioning first, about the holding of the automated national election before conducting the piloting in 12 provinces and highly urbanized cities, and also the procedural lapses in the bidding. That after that case was disposed of by the Supreme Court, I filed a petition; unfortunately, the Supreme Court summarily dismissed it because it was already moot and academic considering that they already dismissed the Harry Roque case. REP. LAGMAN. I recall, distinguished Genteman, that in that petition which you filed before the Supreme Court, you also principally argued that Republic Act No. 9369 should be the governing election law for the May 10, 2010 elections. Is that correct? REP. GARCIA (P.). Correct, Mr. Speaker. REP. LAGMAN. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court dismissed your petition. So, the distinguished Gentleman is just reiterating what he already said before the Supreme Court and also before this Body several timesan argument which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. That is all I would like to impress this august Body, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, distinguished Gentleman for accommodating my interpellation. REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, may I respond. Precisely, I did not want to mention that case in the Supreme Court because I filed a motion for reconsideration but it was overtaken by the election, and it is not my thesis that we have the law, we can read the law. Now, it does not require any further study or analysis to know and to determine whether the law has been violated. In fact, as I

16 said, the COMELEC knew that it was violating the law because it wanted to amend that law before the May 10, 2010 elections. REP. NOGRALES. Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Yes, what is the pleasure of the Gentleman from Davao City? REP. NOGRALES. Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Gentleman from Cebu will yield to a very few questions. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). If he so desires. REP. GARCIA (P.). Willingly. REP. NOGRALES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned with the statements made by the honorable Gentleman from Cebu regarding the legitimacy and illegitimacy of the candidates who won. Primarily, my concern is obviously in Davao City. I would like to make mention that there is a peculiar case in Davao City. In our city, no statements of votes were actually generated at the conclusion of the elections and upon counting by the counting machines and the supposed transmission of these to the Sanggunian. Strangely enough, in Davao City, there were no statements of votes that were generated. So, I was wondering if the Gentleman from Cebu would consider that as a violation also of the Automated Election Law. REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, in the first place, as I explained, Republic Act No. 9369 prescribes and mandates the use of a voting machine. That is the definition of an automated election system. That provision of the law was not followed or implemented by the COMELEC. Now, even in the automation process relating to the canvassing and transmission of election returns, the provisions of RA No. 9369 were also violated by the COMELEC. Under RA No. 9369, the election returns should have been printed in an automated election in 100 copies at the polling place and one copy or the first copy should have been transmitted directly to the canvassing board. As practiced by the COMELEC, the election returns were not transmitted to the board of canvassers, but they were still coursed through the so-called server, and from the server, to the canvassing board. Actually, this procedure was not in accordance with Republic Act No. 9369. REP. NOGRALES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Gentleman from Cebu if he is aware that the ballots used in the May 10, 2010 election in fact did not have any serial numbers. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman from Cebu would agree with me that this is also a violation of our election laws because our election laws specifically provide that ballots to be used in the election must have serial numbers. Strangely enough, the serial numbers did not appear in our ballots on the May 10, 2010 elections. REP. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, Republic Act No. 9369, in Section 13, provides for the configuration of the official

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 ballots, and in other provisions of Republic Act No. 9369, they require a safeguard to establish the authenticity of official ballots. As a matter of fact, one of the requirements of an AES is that it must provide the voter a voter verified paper audit trail, so that the ballot can be identified by the voter. So, it should contain a serial number. REP. NOGRALES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to ask the Gentleman from Cebu if he experienced the same thing in his district and his city. In Davao City, there were priority numbers that were used during the conduct of election in May 10, 2010. Now, I have searched for a provision in the law providing for giving out priority numbers but I failed to see that in the law. During one of the committee hearings in the Committee on Suffrage, I asked one of the Commissioners if there was such a provision or a memorandum or an order from the COMELEC asking the election officers to use priority numbers, and they said no. So, I would like to ask the Gentleman from Cebu, Mr. Speaker, if he is of the opinion that using priority numbers during the May 10, 2010 election was also a violation of the Automated Election Law. REP. GARCIA (P.). Actually, from the very beginning, the COMELEC violated Republic Act No. 9369 because the system that was used was not the system prescribed and mandated by Republic Act No. 9369. You were asking about an experience in my district. Because of the roundabout way of transmitting election results from the precinct, it was to be sent to a center in Manila and not to the board of canvassers, and it is from the so-called server in Manila that the board of canvassers will receive the election result. Now, in one clustered precinct in our town, Dumanjug in Cebu, the results in that precinct showed that we obtained votes. But in the returns that were received from Manila, we got zero in that precinct, but since the results would not anymore affect the results of the canvassing, we just let it go. REP. NOGRALES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to ask the Gentleman from Cebu this questionfor all violations of the Automated Election Law, it seems that it was validated through resolutions issued by the COMELEC en banc such as the resolution cancelling the requirement for ultra violet lighting, the resolution amending the digital signatures and the resolution calling for the switching of the CF cards, I think that was 10 days, eight days before election, and many other resolutions that were issued by the COMELEC en banc. Is the Gentleman from Cebu of the opinion that a resolution can amend a law that was passed by Congress prescribing the very stringent measures in order for us to safeguard the elections? REP. GARCIA (P.). Of course, a resolution is supposed to implement the law; it is not a law by itself. REP. NOGRALES. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My next question is: would the Gentleman from Cebu now kindly tell us his opinion on whether or not we should still use the automated election system and apply the Automated Election Law for the coming elections in 2013?

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 REP. GARCIA (P.). Actually, even if we want to, we cannot because if we have to follow and implement RA 9369 which calls for the use of voting machines aside from counting machines later on, we may not be able to afford it. It will be recalled that after the ARMM election and because of the reported success of the ARMM election, which was supposed to be or reported to be automated, there was a national clamor for automated election. The first reaction of the COMELEC was that, in order to conduct an automated election, we would need some P60 billion. That was the statement of the COMELEC, because voting machines are expensive. In the last ARMM election, I was told by one of the Commissioners that in some areas in ARMM, they used voting machines. How much was spent by the COMELEC in the ARMM election? The ARMM election cost over P2 billion in only five provinces and with a voting population of, maybe, 2.5 million. If we go by that ratio of expenses, then, as earlier reported by the COMELEC, we would need for the entire country, if it is a real automated election, the amount of P60 billion or even more. REP. NOGRALES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Gentleman from Cebu for raising this very important issue and for enlightening this Chamber on these legal matters. I would like to thank him for his time and for acceding to my questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, distinguished Gentleman from Cebu. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Floor Leader is recognized. REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the speech of Deputy Speaker Pablo Garcia, as well as the interpellations thereon to the appropriate committee. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the same is approved. The Floor Leader is recognized. APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL REP. BENALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve Journal No. 66 of our session on Monday, May 9, 2011. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). There is a motion for the approval of Journal No. 66, May 9, 2011. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the same is approved. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO COMMITTEES REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the Unfinished Business, may we take up some administrative matters by way of election. The Dep. Majority Leader, Rep. Rodolfo C. Farias, read the names of the House Members elected to various committees, per Journal No. 67: COMMITTEES ON INTER-PARLIAMENTARY RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY, AND DANGEROUS DRUGS Rep. Baby Aline Vargas-Alfonso COMMITTEES ON TRANSPORTATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND NATURAL RESOURCES Rep. Homer A. Mercado COMMITTEE ON AGRARIAN REFORM

17

Rep. Ma. Victoria R. Sy-Alvarado vice Rep. Tupay T. Loong THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the same are elected as stated in the said committees. DESIGNATION OF REP. ROMUALDEZ TO THE BICAM. CONF. CTTEE. REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, also in relation to House Bill No. 4067 and Senate Bill No. 2640, as an alternate member of the Minority to Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, in the Bicameral Conference Committee, I move for the designation of Rep. Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Honorable Romualdez is so designated. REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, I move for the change of referral of the following measures: House Bills No. 938, 3162 and 4152, from the Committee on Ways and Means, to the Committees on Ways and Means and Trade and Industry; House Bills No. 218 and 330, from the Committee on Trade and Industry, to the Committees on Trade and Industry and Health; House Bill No. 2236, from the Committee on Housing and Urban Development, to the Special Committee on Reforestation and the Committee on Housing and Urban Development; House Bills No. 160, 1528 and 2544, from the Committees on Government Enterprises and Privatization, and Agriculture and Food, to the Committees on Government Enterprises and Privatization, and Agriculture and Food, and the Special Committee on Food Security; House Bills No. 1159, 1772 and 3279, from the Special Committee on Food Security, to the Committees on Government Enterprises and Privatization, and Agriculture and Food, and the Special Committee on Food Security; House Bill No. 3360, from the Committee on Welfare of Children, to the Committee on Transportation; House Bill No. 759, from the Committee on Government Enterprises and Privatization, to the Committees on Public Works and Highways, and Government Enterprises and Privatization; and

18 House Bill No. 4151, from the Committee on Public Works and Highways, to the Committees on Public Works and Highways, and Government Enterprises and Privatization. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection to the change of referral? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is hereby approved. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 3469 Continuation REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Bill No. 3469, as contained in Committee Report No. 289, as reported out by the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms. May I ask that the Secretary General be directed to read only the title of the measure. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The Secretary General is directed to read only the title of the measure. With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the Secretary General read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record. THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 3469, entitled: AN ACT REQUIRING ALL REGISTERED VOTERS WHOSE BIOMETRICS HAVE NOT BEEN CAPTURED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ELECTION OFFICER OF THEIR PLACE OF REGISTRATION FOR PURPOSES OF HAVING THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS, FINGERPRINTS AND SIGNATURES CAPTURED THROUGH THE METHOD OF BIOMETRICS, FOR PURPOSES OF ENSURING THAT THE AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AFIS) CAN BE UTILIZED TO CLEANSE THE RECORDS OF DOUBLE OR MULTIPLE REGISTRANTS. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. FARIAS. For clarity, Mr. Speaker, this is House Bill No. 3469, as contained in Committee Report No. 289. The

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011 parliamentary status of this bill is that it is in the period of amendments. Considering that there are no amendments, and since no Member has signified his intention to introduce any individual or committee amendments, I move that we terminate the period of amendments, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). There is a motion to terminate the period of amendments. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is hereby approved. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized. REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve House Bill No. 3469 on Second Reading, as contained in Committee Report No. 289. VIVA VOCE VOTING THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). There is a motion for the approval on Second Reading of House Bill No. 3469, as contained in Committee Report No. 289. As many as are in favor of House Bill No. 3469, please say aye. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Aye. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). As many as are against, please say nay. FEW MEMBERS. Nay. APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 3469 ON SECOND READING THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The ayes have it; the motion is approved. House Bill No. 3469 is hereby approved. ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION REP. FARIAS. Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn the session until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 11, 2011, at four oclock in the afternoon. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Taada). The session is adjourned until tomorrow at four oclock in the afternoon. It was 7:24 p.m.

Published by the Publication and Editorial Service, Plenary Affairs Bureau The Congressional Record can be accessed through the Downloads Center of the official website of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.ph
FLL/05112011/1420